A miniscule minority of Indian citizenry, enjoying strangely enormous space and voice thanks largely for the services of the paid publicists, and the pathetic dependence of 24X7 electronic media on such contribution for very survival, a peculiar melodrama is being played in the national capital; all in the name of protecting the Constitution of India but by stubbornly avoiding, evading and by passing the very same Constitution of India, a classic case of fence eating the crop!
Those shouting from the rooftops of the dangers to the Constitution have no qualms to take recourse to extra-legal, extra-Constitutional and even rank unconstitutional remedies for achieving their hidden agendas and gaudy ambitions.
The Constitution of India prescribes the manner for removal of the Chief Election Commissioner of India [Proviso to Clause (5), Article 124] to the effect that the Chief Election Commissioner of India is not to be removed from office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India is to be removed, and the same Constitution of India provides the manner for removal of the Judge of the Supreme Court of India prescribing that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The Supreme Court has held that where a manner is prescribed for removal of a Constitutional functionary by the Constitutional of India, i.e., Judge of the Supreme Court of India, that Constitutional functionary can be removed in that manner alone and no other methodology, not even by recourse to the Writ jurisdiction of the High Courts (Article 226 of the Constitution) or of the Supreme Court of India (Article 32 of the Constitution) and the Writ of Quo Warranto.
It is nauseatingly glaring that heckling the incumbent Chief Election Commissioner of India to resign, and that too by a bunch of individuals who have admittedly pronounced personal, and partisan goals to achieve with the dubious backgrounds is not the manner prescribed by the Constitution of India for the removal from office of Chief Election Commissioner of India, and the alleged recourse to proviso (a) to clause (2) of Article 124 has to be on the own volition of incumbent, and the very heckling being resorted to by the protagonists would render any such resignation to be unconstitutional, and by their very proclamations protagonists cannot take recourse to the glaringly gaudy heckling to induce, if not coerce and force, the incumbent to resign decidedly being unconstitutional; for alleged protection of the Constitution.
It is further noteworthy that the Constitution of India has conferred authority to initiate the process of removal of a Judge of SC from its office and by its extension, the Chief Election Commissioner to Members of Parliament alone, and no one else not even to the Govt. of India and its Council of Ministers acting as delegate of the President of India, and certainly not to the bunch of self-serving minuscule minority canvassing a decidedly personal, motivated and partisan agenda.
There is a highly objectionable situation herein as those who are vouching to protect the Constitution of India are themselves not abiding by the same Constitution of India.
Admittedly, CEC of India is a Constitutional functionary whose manner of removal from office is provided in the Constitution of India itself, and the incumbent is not be removed from office except in like manner and admittedly, the mob-induced rampage demanding resignation from office by a dubious entity having refused to, and failed to comply with the law, and having the demonstratively visible involvement of foreigners, is not one of the methods for removal of the CEC, no matter what the nature and content of allegations against the incumbent are.
As the duplicity of the outlandishly vocal protagonists is glaring, so is the horrendous slumbering of the concerned authorities of the Govt. of India, more particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, having control of the National Investigation Agency (the NIA) and the Delhi Police; and the Deptt. of Revenue, Govt. of India having control of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (the CBDT) qua the source, and the quantum of money being deployed for the subversive acts of The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and its arrogant agenda.
Admittedly, the CJP claims itself to be a “political party” but admittedly it has not registered itself with the Election Commission of India u/s 29 A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amended by The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1988; and as it claims to have been founded on 16th of May, 2026 the period of 30 days for its registration with the Election Commission of India is long over on 15th June, 2026; and the upshot of which is that it cannot avail benefits of section 12 of The Income Tax Act, 2025 [or section 13A of the repealed The Income Tax Act, 1961] and must pay taxes in India on worldwide income as “Association of Persons” [u/s 2(77)(e) of The Income Tax Act, 2025; & u/s 2(31)(v) of The Income Tax Act, 1961] or in the alternate protagonists must pay the taxes on the money being spent on their activities as their income.
Further, not being a political party u/s 29 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1988, it cannot avail the indulgences of State contingent upon the status of a Political Party but which it has been allowed to enjoy so far by the Delhi Police and the other concerned administrative authorities.
The failure to register u/s 29 A of The Representation of People Act, 1951 as amended by The Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1988 is neither accidental nor innocent but by all accounts is deliberate, and well thought out act as the mandatory pre-requisite of such a registration is that the applicant must be an association or body of “individual citizens of India” calling itself a political party and must have Memorandum/rules & bye-laws/ Constitution of Party containing specific provision as required u/sub-section (5) of section 29A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.
This mandatory provision is to be mandatorily included in the text of the Party Constitution itself as one of the clauses, and as per sub-section (7) of section 29A of The Representation of People Act, 1951 as amended by The Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1988 no association or body is to be registered as a political party unless its memorandum, rules and regulations or the Constitution conform to the above referred to provisions of sub-section (5) of section 29A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amended by The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1988; and admittedly CJP has not done that so far.
Further, the Party Constitution must have detailed provisions about all aspects of the Party such as criteria for membership, election of office-bearers and important Committees, duties and powers of office-bearers, the disciplinary action, etc., and there should be a specific provision in the rules and regulations/memorandum/Constitution of party regarding organisational elections at different levels and the periodicity of such elections and term of office of its office-bearers; besides the procedure in the case of merger/ dissolution of association and the procedure to be followed for amendment of the Constitution/bye-laws of Party should be provided in the bye-laws, and the Constitution/bye-laws be authenticated on each page by its General Secretary/President/ Chairman & seal of signatory must be affixed thereon.
As the affirmation as prescribed shall subject the person rendering the same to the criminal contingencies in the event of its falsehood, etc., as well as disqualify ab initio at the very threshold the persons not being the Indian citizens from indulging in such political activity, the non-compliance of section 29 A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 by the CJP and its participatory beneficiaries is deliberate to avoid the consequences of the false affirmations as made on oath, and at the same time, to keep the field wide open for those not being the citizens of India.
The involvement and participation of the foreigners and those not being the citizens of India in the activities of CJP with the participatory knowledge, consent and approval of its founders and controllers, is not in dispute as the Maharashtra Police has found out involvement of an American citizen now very rightly asked to leave India in two weeks’ time.
An investigation in the source, and the quantum of both the income, as well as expenditure by a tax-resident in India if not properly accounted for, and not being tax-paid as per law is the obligation of the CBDT and other Income Tax authorities under its subordination; and not carrying out such investigation qua a particular individual or entity is violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and by not mounting a transparent investigation in the sources, and the quantum of money being spent on the activities of the CJP all the more when Uttar Pradesh Police has found out that a petty mobile phone mechanic had spent huge amount of money on distributing the food at the protest site; and when the same CBDT went head-on against boatmen who earned by hard work during 2025 Kumbh.
The efforts of the junior Officers of Uttar Pradesh Police, and those of Maharashtra Police is commendable but that need to be complimented by the higher Police authorities more so those vested with the Magisterial and regulatory functions; and the CJP should have been put to the strict rigours of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 as amended by The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1988 if it wanted to act as a Political Party, and as it has been doing over the last 6 months and in the event of its non-compliance, it should not have been permitted to act as a political party, all the more so when its activities were in direct violation of the Constitution of India.
It is imperative, by the force of law that the CBDT mount necessary investigations and inquiries in sources and the quantum of the money now being spent on the activities of the CJP to bring the tax due to the public exchequer.
The author is a former IRS Officer and a lawyer; Views presented are personal.