‘Impeachment Process Telescoped into a Unilateral View’: Oppn on CEC Impeachment Notice Rejection

New Delhi: Two days after two notices signed by 193 opposition MPs to move an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was rejected in both houses of parliament, the opposition on Wednesday (April 8) accused the presiding officer of conducting a “mini trial”, dismissing the motion at the admission stage and “telescoping” the entire impeachment process into one person’s “unilateral” view.

Addressing a joint press conference of opposition MPs, the Congress's Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the Supreme Court in the Justice Yashwant Verma case had laid down six stages for the impeachment process, but that in rejecting the notice to move the motion against Kumar, Rajya Sabha chair C.P. Radhakrishnan had "strangulated" the process and "telescoped" it so it could be narrowed down and decided by the presiding officer.

This goes against constitutional norms and avoids parliamentary scrutiny, he said.

"The court itemised that impeachment has roughly six stages. The problem with this order is that it ends everything at the first stage. It strangulates all the six stages, telescopes it as if that power at the threshold can be so narrowly looked at only by the presiding officer. If this process is followed, how will the impeachment process go to a committee, the collective process of parliamentary wisdom?” Singhvi said.

Singhvi was addressing the press conference alongside Trinamool Congress MPs Derek O'Brien and Sagarika Ghose, the Rashtriya Janata Dal's Manoj Kumar Jha, the Aam Aadmi Party's Sandeep Pathak, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's Yogesh and the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar)'s Rajeev Jha.

He said that the identical orders given by Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla and by Radhakrishnan bypass the six stages including admission of the notice, formation of an adjudicatory committee, the committee tabling a report, parliamentary discussion and referral to the president.

“The order notes that all the procedures have been fulfilled. It also notes correctly that the presiding officer can only take a prima facie view. It then proceeds to completely wrongly hold a mini trial. It takes the opinion of the presiding officer on the charges. This is completely wrong,” said Singhvi.

Radhakrishnan’s 17-page order rejecting the notice to move an impeachment motion against Kumar and which was seen by The Wire says that the seven charges levelled by the opposition are “relevant for political debate” but “do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings”.

Singhvi said that by rejecting the motion at the very first stage, “you effectively eliminate all subsequent stages, including scrutiny by an independent committee and parliament's collective wisdom”.

“The impeachment process is reduced to the decision of one person, it eliminates any further scrutiny by the temple of democracy, by an adjudicatory body appointed by the Supreme Court. In this distorted application you can never have any accountability,” he said.

The opposition in its two separate notices moved in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on March 12 had accused Kumar of “misbehaviour” and listed seven charges. The notice in the Rajya Sabha was signed by 63 MPs while the one in the Lok Sabha was signed by 130 MPs.

Both notices were rejected on April 6 and no reason was provided in the bulletins published by either House.

On April 7, identical orders issued by the Lok Sabha speaker and Radhakrishnan laid down the reasons for rejecting the notices. The order seen by The Wire said that some charges involve matters that are already decided or are under judicial review. While they can be relevant to “political debate” they do not meet the “high bar” for removal proceedings, it said.

Singhvi however said that the presiding officer had “mixed up subjudice, contempt and impeachment” and remained silent on the consultative process envisaged by the Supreme Court.

"You have done a mini-trial, you have strangulated the adjudication in the political process, you have mixed up subjudice, contempt and impeachment," he added.

According to the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a Supreme Court judge can be removed if an impeachment notice is given in either House of parliament. If the notice is given in the Lok Sabha it needs to be signed by at least 100 members, and if in the Rajya Sabha it needs to be signed by at least 50 MPs. The speaker or chairperson can then decide whether to admit the motion or refuse to admit it.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.