The move to impeach CEC Gyanesh Kumar, though symbolic, matters |
What more must the CEC do to deserve impeachment? I wondered as I read an editorial in this paper (‘Question CEC, but move to impeach is unwise’, IE, March 13) admonishing the Opposition for bringing an impeachment motion against Gyanesh Kumar, the CEC. While conceding that there was merit in accusations of political bias, intemperate behaviour and an ill-timed and shoddily executed SIR, the editorial warned that the Opposition was undermining itself and “risking a hardening of confrontation with a high-ranking constitutional authority” by “rushing to use an instrument of last resort to score only a symbolic point”.
So, I turned to the Constitution. Article 324 (5) lays down that the CEC can only be removed on the same ground and by following the same procedure as established for the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court. The procedure involves impeachment by Parliament on the ground of proven “misbehaviour or incapacity”. The Constitution does not tell us what kind of behaviour is expected of the Election Commissioners. Fortunately, the Supreme Court spelled it out in the famous case (Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India) on the process for the appointment of the Election Commissioners. Writing the majority opinion, Justice K M Joseph formulated the normative standards expected of the Election Commissioners, standards that we must judge Gyanesh Kumar against: “Persons of integrity and independence who can command public confidence”, who are “capable of acting impartially”, who are “insulated from executive influence” and can “function without fear or favour”, possessing the “character and strength necessary to........