A rant on “demand to remove Gyanesh Kumar”. Let us begin with one elementary question for everyone demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation: WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU? The PM? The Union Cabinet? The HM? None of them can simply order the Chief Election Commissioner to vacate his office. The CEC is not a government employee who can be dismissed because a political party has taken its grievances to the streets. Article 324(5) of the Constitution protects the CEC against arbitrary removal. His removal must follow the same procedure and grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge. Here is how the process actually works: A) Initiate a parliamentary motion. At least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign a removal motion. B) Secure admission. The Speaker or Chairman decides whether to admit the motion. C) Investigate the charges. If admitted, a three-member committee examines the allegations under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. D) Secure a special majority. Both Houses must pass the motion by a majority of their total membership and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. E) Obtain the President’s removal order. Only after the constitutionally prescribed parliamentary process has been completed can the President formally remove the CEC. Alternatively, Gyanesh Kumar can voluntarily resign by submitting his resignation to the President. Now, tell me: what exactly is a street protest supposed to achieve if the demand is that the government simply sack him? If you believe there are grounds for his removal, follow the constitutional procedure. Convince MPs. Present evidence. Build the case. Secure the required majorities. That is how a constitutional democracy works. And the most astonishing part? It is not merely political activists who appear to be missing this elementary distinction. Even journalists, whose job is to inform citizens and hold institutions to account, are amplifying the spectacle without adequately explaining the constitutional process involved. Journalism is not stenography for political slogans. Before broadcasting demands, perhaps journalists should explain who possesses the legal authority to act on them. Before lecturing the country on constitutional morality, they should establish what the Constitution actually says. If these protesters are genuinely participating without being paid, and they do not even understand the constitutional procedure governing the office they want to challenge, then they are being spectacularly foolish. How do you claim to defend a Constitution you have not bothered to understand? And if political parties are mobilising citizens without explaining these basic facts, the question becomes even more uncomfortable: are they educating citizens about democracy, or exploiting their ignorance for political theatre? Let us be clear. Criticising Gyanesh Kumar is legitimate. Questioning the Election Commission is legitimate. Demanding transparency and accountability is legitimate. But the Constitution provides a process for removing the CEC. A street ultimatum cannot replace it. And the right to protest is not a licence for violence. Where there are evidence from past for these protestors of attempting to breach barricades, get in clashes or incitement to violence, the police are entitled to take lawful preventive action. The previous protest’s conduct must be judged on evidence, and every police action must satisfy the applicable law. Nobody gets a free pass merely by attaching a political slogan to unlawful conduct. Democracy is not mob rule. Constitutional accountability is not street coercion. And journalism is not the art of amplifying ignorance. The Constitution is not protected by shouting its name. It is protected by understanding it, respecting its procedures and refusing to let political convenience override the law. If you are marching to save the Constitution, start by reading it. And if you are reporting on that march, start by explaining it.