While addressing a press conference alongside fellow opposition leaders, Singhvi stated that rejecting the notices at a preliminary phase effectively “strangulates” the entire impeachment process outlined in the Constitution.
He was joined by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leaders Derek O’Brien and Sagarika Ghose, Rashtriya Janata Dal’s (RJD) Manoj Jha, Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) Sandeep Pathak, DMK’s Yogesh, and NCP-SP’s Rajeev Jha.
“When accountability is cleverly postponed, democracy itself becomes impeached,” Singhvi remarked, asserting that if the Election Commission’s (EC) position is robust, there should be no hesitation toward examination.
“If the truth on the side of the CEC or the EC is so compelling, why fear examination? If the process is transparent, why attempt to dismiss the motion right at the outset?” he posed.
The Congress leader contended that the presiding officers of Parliament made a “fundamental conceptual error” by reducing a multi-step constitutional process into a single decision at the admission phase.
He maintained that the Constitution outlines an intricate procedure encompassing an initial admission, the establishment of a judicial committee, formulation of charges, report submission, parliamentary deliberations, and ultimately, a decision.
“Motion at the very first stage effectively eliminates all following phases, including review by an independent committee and Parliament’s collective judgment,” Singhvi stated.
“You have condensed a detailed constitutional framework into the perspective of a single presiding officer. That is fundamentally contrary to the vision our framers had,” he continued.
He also asserted that the presiding officers overstepped by assessing the merits of the allegations rather than sticking to a prima-facie evaluation.
“You cannot hold a mini trial at this stage. That undermines the very structure of the Constitution,” the Congress leader emphasized.
“Common sense indicates that if the presiding officer provides a definitive opinion at this point, an impeachment can never occur,” he added.
Singhvi further indicated that specific charges raised by the opposition, including those concerning alleged electoral discrepancies and delays in adhering to judicial directives, were inadequately addressed in the rejection notification.
“There is no response to specific claims. This is what transpires when a proper adjudicatory process is denied,” he remarked.
“You cannot diminish an independent constitutional procedure like impeachment to matters of sub-judice or contempt. They exist in entirely separate realms,” he added.
Describing the situation as “a very serious matter”, Singhvi claimed that this decision casts “a shadow on the integrity of Parliament” and raises questions regarding the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) readiness to permit scrutiny of the EC.
“The entire process has been simplified to the decision of one individual, negating accountability. This was never the intention of the Constitution’s architects,” he reiterated.
“You have stifled the process at its inception and eradicated any potential for accountability,” Singhvi asserted.
In its notices, the opposition accused the current EC chief of failing to “uphold independence and constitutional fidelity”, and functioning under the “influence of the executive”.
Also Read | Nearly 91 lakh names deleted from Bengal electoral rolls after SIR exercise
The opposition also raised questions about the appointment process of Kumar as the CEC, alleged he held a “partisan” press conference on August 17, 2025, targeting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, and demonstrated “discriminatory treatment” towards opposition versus ruling party members. The CEC was also accused of executing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise “in alignment with the ruling party’s political goals”.
In separate decisions, the Lok Sabha speaker and Rajya Sabha chairman denied the admission of the notices filed under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, along with other applicable constitutional and statutory provisions, seeking Kumar’s removal as the CEC.
The notifications indicated that the notices were rejected “after thorough consideration of the notice of motion and a careful and objective assessment of all pertinent aspects and issues involved”.
