New Delhi, April 7 Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday criticised the rejection of notices from the opposition to move a motion in Parliament for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, saying that the decision was made without any investigation, and therefore, there were no facts to support the allegations.
Sibal, a senior advocate, said that if constitutional authorities make such decisions, then the polarized politics in the country will continue.
Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday rejected separate notices from the opposition to move a motion for the removal of Kumar from his post.
The opposition had submitted the notices to the Lok Sabha speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman against the CEC, listing seven charges, including alleged "partisan and discriminatory conduct in office", "deliberate obstruction of investigation of electoral fraud" and "mass disenfranchisement".
In separate orders, the speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman refused to admit the notices moved under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, read with other relevant constitutional and statutory provisions.
Addressing a press conference here, Sibal said that the only option now was to go to court to challenge the order rejecting the notices, and that decision had to be taken collectively.
"I will certainly give my suggestion when they ask me," he said on his view of what the way forward is on the matter.
Sibal said that no decision had been taken on the impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. On one hand, the constitutional authorities decide immediately while the Yadav matter is pending for a year-and-a-half, he added.
"Who will decide that it is 'proven misbehaviour' (in the case of CEC)? Can't be decided by the chairman and the speaker that it is proven or not proven.
"If that was the case, why have a Judges (Inquiry) Act?... without an investigation, you decided that there are no facts in it," Sibal said.
He also read out the constitutional provisions and the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act applicable in case of the CEC.
"If notice is given on the motion for presenting an address to the president for the removal of the election commissioner, then the speaker or as the case maybe, the chairman, may after consulting such persons... as he thinks fit and after considering such materials if any as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the motion," Sibal said.
"He (the chairman) has not looked at any other material, no proven misbehaviour is made out, how can he say that?" he said.
Radhakrishnan, in his order rejecting the notice by the opposition to move a motion for the removal of CEC Kumar, said that while the allegations are relevant for political debate, they do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings.
In his order, Radhakrishnan said he finds that the allegations lack the proof necessary to constitute misbehaviour which establishes a prima facie case for the removal of the CEC.
"Some charges involve matters already decided or currently under judicial review. While these allegations are relevant for political debate, they do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings," he said.
In his order rejecting the notice by opposition members, Radhakrishnan said the notice does not demonstrate "misbehaviour" as envisaged by Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution.
"Therefore, the prima-facie requirements for admitting this notice of Motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, have not been met. Against this backdrop, having considered the notice of Motion and the existing constitutional and statutory provisions, I am of the firm opinion that the notice of motion does not deserve to be admitted. Accordingly, I refuse to admit the notice of motion," he said.