Congress’s Constitutional Tamasha in Keralam
The Assembly resolution raises questions about constitutional limits.
Total Views |
When constitutional institutions become targets of political expediency, the problem is not merely ignorance but a disturbing disregard for institutional propriety
These were two separate incidents, but together they raise an uncomfortable question - has constitutional accountability become, for Congress, a convenient slogan to be invoked against institutions whenever their decisions or responses do not suit its political campaign?
The Assembly resolution raises questions about constitutional limits. The X post raises questions about elementary institutional understanding and public decorum. Both deserve scrutiny.
SIR: Acceptable in Victory, Unacceptable in Opposition?
The first contradiction concerns the SIR exercise. Congress and its allies have mounted a sustained campaign against the revision of electoral rolls, portraying it as a threat to voting rights and democracy. But the Congress-led United Democratic Front won a decisive victory in Keralam’s Assembly election, securing 102 of the 140 seats.
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor publicly acknowledged in May that he suspected the revision might have benefited the party by removing duplicate registrations that he alleged had historically favoured the CPI(M). Other Congress leaders, including V.D. Satheesan and KPCC president Sunny Joseph, made different arguments about the relationship between SIR and the electoral outcome. Their statements did not establish that the process was flawless, but they complicated the sweeping political narrative that SIR itself was inherently illegitimate.
There is no contradiction in acknowledging that an electoral process may have benefited a party while still identifying wrongful exclusions that require correction. Every allegation of disenfranchisement deserves examination. But the Opposition must distinguish specific, demonstrable irregularities from a blanket indictment of the Election Commission.
Instead, the Assembly has now passed a resolution demanding Kumar’s removal. The timing invites a political question - is this primarily about correcting electoral irregularities, or has SIR become a vehicle for the Congress leadership’s wider confrontation with the Election Commission?
Rahul Gandhi has made the removal of Kumar a central demand of the agitation. Keralam’s resolution now reinforces that campaign. The suspicion that the state unit is aligning itself with the national leadership’s political priorities is therefore understandable, even though motive cannot be established from the resolution alone.
A State Assembly Cannot Remove the CEC
The constitutional problem is more fundamental than political timing.
A state Assembly is entitled to debate electoral administration, criticise the Election Commission and express its concerns through resolutions. But it cannot remove the Chief Election Commissioner through its own resolution. Article 324(5) of the Constitution prescribes a special process: the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.
The Keralam Assembly resolution cannot substitute for that process. Nor can a political majority in one state determine the tenure of a national constitutional functionary.
The distinction is not technical hair-splitting. It is the essence of constitutional government. Institutions possess defined powers, and political representatives are expected to understand those boundaries before making demands that carry national implications.
The Assembly also called for changes to the committee selecting Election Commissioners and corrective measures concerning allegedly excluded voters. Those are matters that can be debated politically. But the demand for the CEC’s removal must be understood in the context of the constitutional procedure that governs it.
The question is whether the resolution is being used principally as a political declaration against Kumar rather than as a carefully framed institutional intervention. The Congress leadership must answer that question through the substance of its allegations and the evidence supporting them.
“Dear Surya Kant”: The Language of Arrogance
The Kerala Congress post targeting the CJI is even more revealing.
After Justice Surya Kant described the Delhi protest and associated restrictions as a law-and-order matter outside his domain, the official state Congress account responded: “Dear Surya Kant, if law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.” The post was deleted after attracting widespread criticism. KPCC president Sunny Joseph said it had been published without the knowledge or approval of the state leadership, and the person managing the account was removed from the charge
What does this message reveal? First, it confuses institutional responsibility. Law and order is primarily an executive responsibility; the judiciary adjudicates disputes and can issue directions within its jurisdiction. The CJI is not the operational head of a police administration who can be instructed to resign for declining to assume responsibility for public order.
Second, the language is astonishingly presumptuous. A political party’s official account effectively told the head of the Indian judiciary to quit and suggested that the party could find his replacement. The CJI is not an employee of the Congress, and the Supreme Court is not a department whose leadership a political organisation can appoint or dismiss.
The phrase “Dear Surya Kant” is not, by itself, the central issue. The demand that followed it is. It reflects a casual disregard for the institutional distance that must exist between political parties and constitutional authorities.
The subsequent deletion and disciplinary action do not erase the episode. They raise another question: how did a message of such consequence appear on an official account without effective editorial or political supervision?
Calling the incident merely a staff member’s mistake may explain the party leadership’s position, but it does not resolve the institutional failure.
The larger political context cannot be ignored. Rahul Gandhi has increasingly made constitutional institutions central to his political campaign, particularly through allegations of electoral wrongdoing and demands for the CEC’s removal. His right to question the Election Commission is unquestionable. But the manner in which such campaigns are conducted matters.
Nevertheless, political leadership carries responsibility for the culture it encourages. If the message from the top is that constitutional authorities must be publicly confronted whenever they do not accommodate political demands, state organisations may conclude that escalation is more valuable than restraint.
This is where Rahul Gandhi’s own conduct becomes relevant. Critics have questioned whether his political interventions sufficiently distinguish between democratic protest and pressure on independent institutions. His supporters would argue that robust opposition is essential to democracy. The answer lies in the distinction between questioning an institution through evidence and lawful procedure, and treating its authority as illegitimate merely because it does not accept a political demand.
A constitutional democracy requires the former. It cannot function properly if every disagreement becomes a campaign to discredit the institution concerned.
The IUML Alliance and Political Calculations
The Congress’s alliance with the Indian Union Muslim League is a significant feature of Keralam’s political landscape. The IUML is an influential UDF partner, and coalition considerations inevitably shape the state’s political calculations. The Congress leadership must demonstrate that its constitutional positions are guided by consistent principles rather than the demands of political accommodation or the need to reinforce the national party’s campaign.
The test is straightforward - would Congress apply the same standards to an institution when its decisions favoured the party? Would it respect the prescribed removal process if the CEC were politically sympathetic to its position? Would it accept a judicial explanation of jurisdiction even when that explanation frustrated its immediate political objectives? Constitutional principles mean little if they are applied selectively.
Constitutional Democracy Is Not a Political Playground
Keralam’s two incidents should serve as a warning about the consequences of confusing political aggression with constitutional accountability. The Assembly can debate SIR, but it cannot replace the constitutional process for removing the CEC. Congress can criticise the judiciary, but it cannot claim the authority to dictate who should occupy the office of Chief Justice.
The deleted X post was not merely an unfortunate choice of words. It exposed a failure to appreciate the independence and jurisdiction of a constitutional institution. The Assembly resolution, meanwhile, raises legitimate questions about the limits of state legislative authority and the political use of demands directed at a national constitutional office.
Rahul Gandhi and the Congress leadership must recognise that invoking the Constitution does not confer a licence to disregard its institutional boundaries.
Democracy is not the freedom to demand every resignation, challenge every institution and convert every disagreement into a political spectacle. It is the discipline to respect procedures.
When constitutional ignorance masquerades as political courage, democracy becomes a casualty of arrogance. From Rahul Gandhi to his Kerala unit, Congress must answer a fundamental question: is the Constitution a solemn commitment or merely a political weapon? Indians deserve leaders who respect institutions, not politicians who treat them as personal adversaries.
Keralam’s Congress has delivered a revealing demonstration of how political expediency can overwhelm constitutional restraint. On October 12, the state Assembly passed a resolution seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. On the same day, the official Kerala Congress account on X posted a message telling Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to resign if law and order was not his domain, adding that the party would find his replacement. The post was subsequently deleted following widespread criticism, and the party removed the person responsible for managing the account.
The Assembly resolution raises questions about constitutional limits. The X post raises questions about elementary institutional understanding and public decorum. Both deserve scrutiny.
SIR: Acceptable in Victory, Unacceptable in Opposition?
The first contradiction concerns the SIR exercise. Congress and its allies have mounted a sustained campaign against the revision of electoral rolls, portraying it as a threat to voting rights and democracy. But the Congress-led United Democratic Front won a decisive victory in Keralam’s Assembly election, securing 102 of the 140 seats.
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor publicly acknowledged in May that he suspected the revision might have benefited the party by removing duplicate registrations that he alleged had historically favoured the CPI(M). Other Congress leaders, including V.D. Satheesan and KPCC president Sunny Joseph, made different arguments about the relationship between SIR and the electoral outcome. Their statements did not establish that the process was flawless, but they complicated the sweeping political narrative that SIR itself was inherently illegitimate.
There is no contradiction in acknowledging that an electoral process may have benefited a party while still identifying wrongful exclusions that require correction. Every allegation of disenfranchisement deserves examination. But the Opposition must distinguish specific, demonstrable irregularities from a blanket indictment of the Election Commission.
Instead, the Assembly has now passed a resolution demanding Kumar’s removal. The timing invites a political question - is this primarily about correcting electoral irregularities, or has SIR become a vehicle for the Congress leadership’s wider confrontation with the Election Commission?
Rahul Gandhi has made the removal of Kumar a central demand of the agitation. Keralam’s resolution now reinforces that campaign. The suspicion that the state unit is aligning itself with the national leadership’s political priorities is therefore understandable, even though motive cannot be established from the resolution alone.
A State Assembly Cannot Remove the CEC
The constitutional problem is more fundamental than political timing.
A state Assembly is entitled to debate electoral administration, criticise the Election Commission and express its concerns through resolutions. But it cannot remove the Chief Election Commissioner through its own resolution. Article 324(5) of the Constitution prescribes a special process: the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.
The Keralam Assembly resolution cannot substitute for that process. Nor can a political majority in one state determine the tenure of a national constitutional functionary.
The distinction is not technical hair-splitting. It is the essence of constitutional government. Institutions possess defined powers, and political representatives are expected to understand those boundaries before making demands that carry national implications.
The Assembly also called for changes to the committee selecting Election Commissioners and corrective measures concerning allegedly excluded voters. Those are matters that can be debated politically. But the demand for the CEC’s removal must be understood in the context of the constitutional procedure that governs it.
The question is whether the resolution is being used principally as a political declaration against Kumar rather than as a carefully framed institutional intervention. The Congress leadership must answer that question through the substance of its allegations and the evidence supporting them.
“Dear Surya Kant”: The Language of Arrogance
The Kerala Congress post targeting the CJI is even more revealing.
After Justice Surya Kant described the Delhi protest and associated restrictions as a law-and-order matter outside his domain, the official state Congress account responded: “Dear Surya Kant, if law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.” The post was deleted after attracting widespread criticism. KPCC president Sunny Joseph said it had been published without the knowledge or approval of the state leadership, and the person managing the account was removed from the charge
What does this message reveal? First, it confuses institutional responsibility. Law and order is primarily an executive responsibility; the judiciary adjudicates disputes and can issue directions within its jurisdiction. The CJI is not the operational head of a police administration who can be instructed to resign for declining to assume responsibility for public order.
Second, the language is astonishingly presumptuous. A political party’s official account effectively told the head of the Indian judiciary to quit and suggested that the party could find his replacement. The CJI is not an employee of the Congress, and the Supreme Court is not a department whose leadership a political organisation can appoint or dismiss.
The phrase “Dear Surya Kant” is not, by itself, the central issue. The demand that followed it is. It reflects a casual disregard for the institutional distance that must exist between political parties and constitutional authorities.
The subsequent deletion and disciplinary action do not erase the episode. They raise another question: how did a message of such consequence appear on an official account without effective editorial or political supervision?
Calling the incident merely a staff member’s mistake may explain the party leadership’s position, but it does not resolve the institutional failure.
Rahul Gandhi’s Example and the State Unit’s Conduct
When a national leader turns institutional disputes into public confrontations, demands resignations and mobilises political demonstrations around pending constitutional questions, state units can be tempted to imitate the same confrontational style. That is a political interpretation of the pattern, not proof that Rahul Gandhi ordered the Assembly resolution or the X post.
Nevertheless, political leadership carries responsibility for the culture it encourages. If the message from the top is that constitutional authorities must be publicly confronted whenever they do not accommodate political demands, state organisations may conclude that escalation is more valuable than restraint.
This is where Rahul Gandhi’s own conduct becomes relevant. Critics have questioned whether his political interventions sufficiently distinguish between democratic protest and pressure on independent institutions. His supporters would argue that robust opposition is essential to democracy. The answer lies in the distinction between questioning an institution through evidence and lawful procedure, and treating its authority as illegitimate merely because it does not accept a political demand.
A constitutional democracy requires the former. It cannot function properly if every disagreement becomes a campaign to discredit the institution concerned.
The IUML Alliance and Political Calculations
The Congress’s alliance with the Indian Union Muslim League is a significant feature of Keralam’s political landscape. The IUML is an influential UDF partner, and coalition considerations inevitably shape the state’s political calculations. The Congress leadership must demonstrate that its constitutional positions are guided by consistent principles rather than the demands of political accommodation or the need to reinforce the national party’s campaign.
The test is straightforward - would Congress apply the same standards to an institution when its decisions favoured the party? Would it respect the prescribed removal process if the CEC were politically sympathetic to its position? Would it accept a judicial explanation of jurisdiction even when that explanation frustrated its immediate political objectives? Constitutional principles mean little if they are applied selectively.
Constitutional Democracy Is Not a Political Playground
Keralam’s two incidents should serve as a warning about the consequences of confusing political aggression with constitutional accountability. The Assembly can debate SIR, but it cannot replace the constitutional process for removing the CEC. Congress can criticise the judiciary, but it cannot claim the authority to dictate who should occupy the office of Chief Justice.
The deleted X post was not merely an unfortunate choice of words. It exposed a failure to appreciate the independence and jurisdiction of a constitutional institution. The Assembly resolution, meanwhile, raises legitimate questions about the limits of state legislative authority and the political use of demands directed at a national constitutional office.
Rahul Gandhi and the Congress leadership must recognise that invoking the Constitution does not confer a licence to disregard its institutional boundaries.
Democracy is not the freedom to demand every resignation, challenge every institution and convert every disagreement into a political spectacle. It is the discipline to respect procedures.
When constitutional ignorance masquerades as political courage, democracy becomes a casualty of arrogance. From Rahul Gandhi to his Kerala unit, Congress must answer a fundamental question: is the Constitution a solemn commitment or merely a political weapon? Indians deserve leaders who respect institutions, not politicians who treat them as personal adversaries.