New Delhi: Rajya Sabha Chairman CP Radhakrishnan rejected the opposition’s notice of moving a motion to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. In his order dismissing the notice, Radhakrishnan said that although the allegations were relevant to the political debate, prima facie they did not meet the high constitutional hurdles for removal proceedings.He said, “Some of the allegations involve cases already decided or currently under judicial review. Although these allegations are relevant to the political debate, prima facie they do not meet the high constitutional hurdles for removal proceedings.”“Therefore, the prima facie requirements for accepting this notice of motion under the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 have not been satisfied. Against this background, after considering 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 accepted. Accordingly, I decline to accept the notice of motion.”Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday rejected separate notices from the opposition seeking a motion to remove Kumar from his post.In March, the opposition had submitted a notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman against the Chief Election Commissioner citing seven allegations. These included alleged “biased and discriminatory conduct in office”, “deliberate obstruction of electoral fraud investigation” and “mass disenfranchisement”.The notice was signed by opposition parties including Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, RJD and the Left, along with the Aam Aadmi Party, which is no longer formally in the alliance. Some independent MPs also signed the notice.Radhakrishnan, in his order, gave a detailed rebuttal to each of the opposition’s allegations against Gyanesh Kumar. On the first allegation regarding the legality of Kumar’s appointment, Radhakrishnan said, “Even if considered true, these allegations do not amount to any act of misconduct attributable to the Chief Election Commissioner.” He rejected the second allegation over statements about irregularities in the voter list, saying it did not amount to ‘misbehavior’. Refuting the third and fourth charges of obstructing the investigation and SIR of electoral fraud in Bihar, he said that compliance with Supreme Court directions and the ongoing judicial investigation refute any claims of misconduct. On the fifth allegation, regarding nationwide SIR expansion, he described the claims as “hypothetical and speculative” and insufficient to prove abuses. Regarding contempt or non-compliance of Supreme Court orders, he said such issues are dealt with through the contempt jurisdiction of the court. Finally, on the seventh charge of compromising independence, he said, “In the absence of concrete details or strong evidence demonstrating deviation from constitutional or statutory obligations, such claims fail the test of prima facie instance of ‘abuse’.”