By P. Sreekumaran
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: In a welcome show of unanimity, the ruling United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Opposition Left Democratic Front (LDF) joined hands in the State Assembly to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
The Assembly passed a resolution seeking Gyanesh’s removal to improve transparency in the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The resolution, moved by Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan, was, however, opposed by the BJP, which objected to the content of the resolution. It sought amendments to the resolution but they were rejected.
The House voiced grave concern over the accusations levelled against the CEC, while observing that free, transparent and impartial elections and universal adult franchise constituted the basis of Indian democracy. “Given the circumstances where serious doubts have been raised about the impartiality of the ECI, it is imperative that steps be taken to remove the CEC to restore the credibility of the institution,” the resolution said.
The resolution urged the Union Government and the ECI to address the defects in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls and restore the voting rights to all eligible voters. It also demanded steps to remove Kumar as the CEC, and restructure the panel selecting the CEC by including the Chief Justice of India alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The resolution further said that complaints have emerged that crores of eligible voters have been excluded from the electoral rolls without following any proper criteria or informing them in advance. Snatching away the right to vote of the marginalised sections, minorities, migrant labourers and young voters through technical chicanery and defects constitutes a flagrant breach of the democratic principles,” it pointed out.
The original offence has been compounded by reports that the powers of the electoral registration officers to prepare the voters’ list were diluted, that amendments were made to Form 6, and that the Election Commissioners had objected to the ECI decisions. Aberrations in the electoral roll are tantamount to undermining the people’s mandate, the resolution added.
Four members proposed amendments and additions to the original resolution.
The Chief Minister initially rejected all the proposals on the ground that they did not conform with the spirit of the document. However, he accepted one where the Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan suggested that parts of a sentence “lakhs of eligible voters were excluded from the electoral roll” be replaced with “crores” as that was the case across the country.
As expected, BJP MLA B. B. Gopakumar questioned the legality of the 2026 Assembly elections, and demanded its cancellation and dissolution of the Assembly. It was rejected.
The Chief Minister reiterated that “the integrity of the electoral process is non-negotiable. Serious concerns over voter roll revisions, the disenfranchisement of eligible voters, and the “impartiality of the Election Commission. cannot be ignored.”
The State Assembly also passed a resolution seeking withdrawal of the Kerala Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Bill, 2025, which is pending consideration of the President.
The resolution moved by Higher Education Minister Roji John, was adopted after the House rejected the amendments proposed by the Opposition. The scrutiny of the legislation saw the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking clarification on the provisions concerning compulsory ownership or possession of land and the mandatory security deposits or fixed deposits.
According to the minister, such impediments created uncertainties about the Bill, which has not received Presidential assent or be returned to the State Assembly for reconsideration. The continued pendency of the legislation also impeded the Government’s plan to establish private universities in Keralam. It may be mentioned that several states have enacted laws permitting private and foreign universities to operate.
CPI(M) MLA, K. N. Balagopal, however, raised a point of order. He questioned whether the Government could seek the withdrawal of a Bill pending before the President through a resolution under Rule 118.
Speaker Thiruvanchur Radhakrishnan, however, dismissed the point of order, pointing out that introducing, amending, passing and withdrawing legislation must adhere to the constitutional provisions and Assembly procedures. As the Bill was pending before the President, it cannot be treated as pending before the Assembly until it was returned by the President through the Governor. (IPA Service)
