At 4 pm on a weekday, when most Indians were navigating the dull hum of their workdays, the INDIA bloc gathered behind a bank of microphones to stage what it grandly billed as a "public impeachment" of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
It was television theater masquerading as constitutional duty. By borrowing the vocabulary of impeachment—a solemn, agonizingly deliberate power reserved strictly for both Houses of Parliament under Article 124(4) read with Article 324(5)—the combined opposition sought to convict the referee on live camera. They spoke with the righteous fury of an injured party, rattling off grievances about delayed turn-out data, selectively ignored hate-speech complaints, and the lopsided enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. Their diagnosis of an institutional malaise in Nirvachan Sadan is far from baseless. Yet their cure—a roadside tribunal disguised as democratic accountability—is reckless, lazy, and profoundly counterproductive.
Constitutional offices do not derive their legitimacy from the applause of a party briefing, nor should they be stripped of it by the performative rage of a press statement. When political parties substitute constitutional procedure with social media-ready drama, they do not wound the executive. They simply teach an already cynical electorate that the very referee of our democracy is irrevocably compromised, leaving voters with nowhere left to turn.
The Mirage of Street Justice for Constitutional Bodies
Impeachment is intentionally difficult. The framers of the Constitution set an exceptionally high bar—a motion signed by a mandatory threshold of parliamentarians, a judicial inquiry committee, and a two-thirds majority present and voting in both Houses—precisely to shield the Election Commission from the day-to-day gusts of partisan warfare. B.R. Ambedkar and his colleagues knew that whoever lost an election would be tempted to blame the umpire. The process was made agonizing so that no single coalition, drunk on numbers or desperate in defeat, could pull down the commission on a whim.
To announce a "public impeachment" outside the gates of Parliament is to admit political impotence and try to pass it off as revolutionary bravery. If the opposition genuinely believes Gyanesh Kumar has committed proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the remedy lies on the floor of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Draft the notice. Collect the fifty or one hundred signatures. Force the presiding officers to accept or reject the motion on the record. Drag the legal merits into the daylight of a parliamentary debate.
Instead, the INDIA bloc chose a press conference. Why? Because a press conference requires no statutory scrutiny, demands no burden of proof, and faces no judicial cross-examination. It produces clicks, delivers soundbites for the evening panels, and feeds algorithmic outrage. But it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the integrity of the polling booth.
The Grievance Is Real, the Method Is Toxic
Defenders of the opposition will point out—with considerable justification—that the system has left them with no institutional recourse. When the Union government enacted the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, it pointedly dropped the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, replacing the judge with a cabinet minister chosen by the Prime Minister. Nirvachan Sadan has, in the eyes of millions, appeared slow to curb violations by ruling party heavyweights while coming down hard on regional challengers. Why, the argument goes, should the opposition observe procedural courtesies toward an institution that has systematically surrendered its own autonomy?
That critique carries weight, but the response chosen by the opposition burns down the courtroom because the judge has ruled against them. When leaders stand before television cameras and declare that the entire electoral referee is illegitimate, the casualty is not Gyanesh Kumar's tenure; the casualty is the average voter's belief in the power of their own vote. If the Chief Election Commissioner is thoroughly, irredeemably compromised, why should a daily wager in Gorakhpur or a factory worker in Coimbatore stand in the sun for two hours to ink their finger? Nihilism helps nobody except the entrenched status quo. Discrediting the voting mechanism wholesale is the quickest path to depressed turnout, and depressed turnout reliably favors the ruling establishment.
A Strategy of Defeatism
There is also a pungent irony here. Indian electoral history demonstrates repeatedly that no Election Commission, however compliant toward the ruling dispensation, can manufacture a mandate against a tidal wave of public sentiment. In 1977, Indira Gandhi held the levers of the state, the bureaucracy, and the media; the voters booted her out. In 2004, the "India Shining" campaign had every institutional advantage imaginable; voters silently rewrote the script. Just last summer, across Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and West Bengal, voters shattered comfortable mathematical majorities and re-anchored parliamentary democracy.
Elections in India are saved at the polling booth, by vigilant polling agents, meticulous counting-center audits, and unrelenting grassroots mobilization. They are not saved by theatrical declarations in Delhi studios.
By leaning on the language of kangaroo courts, the INDIA bloc inadvertently reveals an opposition that is increasingly running out of stamina for the grind of precinct-level resistance. It is far easier to allege foul play from a podium at 4 pm than it is to place disciplined booth workers across 10 lakh polling stations to ensure form 17C is signed, verified, and uploaded without discrepancy.
The Real Battle Ahead
The Election Commission of India needs urgent, systemic reform. The appointment mechanism must be insulated from executive dominance, perhaps through a constitutional amendment that restores a balanced multi-member selection panel with judicial representation. Nirvachan Sadan must adopt absolute transparency on voting data, releasing exact booth-level voter counts in real time, not days later as aggregated estimates.
Demanding these changes requires sustained pressure: public litigation, parliamentary walkouts, nationwide signature drives, and relentless scrutiny of every administrative slip. That is hard, grinding, unglamorous political work.
A mock impeachment offers the illusion of rebellion while demanding none of the discipline. It allows party strategists to feel like crusaders while leaving the actual machinery of elections untouched. If the INDIA bloc wants to hold the Election Commission accountable, it must stop mimicking the worst impulses of prime-time melodrama. Step into the House, file the papers, take the battle to the Supreme Court, and most importantly, organize the booths. Leave the theatrical tribunals to the actors; democracy has no time for a sham trial.
