The Chairman said that “admitting removal motions based on administrative disagreements or political perceptions would jeopardize its very independence the Constitution aims to safeguard”. Radhakrishnan said that “some charges involve matters already decided or currently under judicial review”. 

“While these allegations are relevant for political debate, they do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings. In view thereof, the notice does not demonstrate ‘misbehaviour’ as envisaged by Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, the prima-facie requirements for admitting this notice of Motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, have not been met,” he said in a 17-page order.

The RS Chairman found that the allegations “lack proofs necessary to constitute misbehaviour which establishes a prima facie case for removal of CEC. “The notice does not demonstrate "misbehaviour" as envisaged by Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, the prima facie requirements for admitting this notice of Motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, have not been met,” Radhakrishnan added. 

The Chairman also cited the Supreme Court’s observations that “the founding fathers of the Constitution advisedly adopted cumbersome process of impeachment as a mode to remove a Judge from office for only proved misbehaviour or incapacity which implies that impeachment process is not available for minor abrasive behaviour of a Judge.” He further emphasised that the Constitution entrusts Parliament with an extraordinary power to initiate proceedings for removal of a person holding a high constitutional office The notices submitted on March 12 to Rajya Sabha Chairman and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla by opposition members seeking removal of Kumar as CEC, were rejected.