What Happened
- Opposition parties led by Trinamool Congress, with support from Congress and Samajwadi Party, are planning to introduce a formal motion in Parliament to remove Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar
- The trigger: allegations of large-scale irregularities in West Bengal's electoral roll revision, with a significant number of voters allegedly under scrutiny without due process
- This is the first time in India's history that opposition parties have formally moved to initiate a CEC removal through the parliamentary mechanism
- The process requires an address by each House of Parliament with a majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting — equivalent to impeaching a Supreme Court judge
Static Topic Bridges
Article 324(5) — Removal Mechanism for CEC
The Chief Election Commissioner's removal is constitutionally protected under Article 324(5), which provides that the CEC "shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court." This requires an address to the President by each House of Parliament, supported by: (i) a majority of the total membership of the House, AND (ii) a majority of not less than two-thirds of members of the House present and voting — both conditions must be met simultaneously.
- Article 324(5): CEC removal — same standard as Supreme Court judge removal under Article 124(4)
- Grounds for removal: "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" (same as SC judges)
- Process: Address to President by both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha independently — each must pass with the dual-majority threshold
- 14-day notice: a notice for removing the CEC must be given with at least 14 days' advance notice (under Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha)
- Election Commissioners (other than CEC): removable on recommendation of the CEC alone — a deliberately asymmetric protection
- Security of tenure: CEC's salary charged to Consolidated Fund of India (Article 324(6)); cannot be reduced after appointment
Connection to this news: The historically unprecedented nature of this motion tests whether Article 324(5)'s high threshold was well-designed — it makes removal genuinely difficult (protecting independence) but not impossible if misbehaviour is proven across party lines.
CEC and Other ECs Appointment Act, 2023 — Controversy
The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 replaced the 1991 Act following the Supreme Court's direction in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). The Court in Anoop Baranwal held that the appointment process must be independent and directed a committee comprising the PM, the CJI, and the Leader of the Opposition until Parliament legislated otherwise. The 2023 Act created a selection committee but excluded the Chief Justice of India — replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM.
- Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023): Supreme Court five-judge bench; directed independent appointment process for ECI members; CJI included in interim process
- CEC Appointment Act, 2023: selection committee — PM (Chair), Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, a Union Cabinet Minister (PM's nominee); excludes CJI
- The 2023 Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court as undermining the independence established in Anoop Baranwal
- Appointment under the new Act: Gyanesh Kumar was the first CEC appointed under the 2023 Act
- Tenure: CEC and ECs serve 6-year terms or until age 65 (whichever earlier); non-renewable
Connection to this news: The opposition's removal motion is partly motivated by their view that Gyanesh Kumar's appointment — under an Act that excluded the CJI from the selection process — lacked sufficient independence, and his subsequent conduct has reinforced their concerns.
Electoral Roll Integrity — Legal and Institutional Framework
Electoral rolls are maintained under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Preparation, revision, and correction of electoral rolls is an ECI function, carried out through Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). The Special Summary Revision process — used to update rolls before elections — is the mechanism through which large-scale additions, deletions, and corrections are made. Due process requires individual notice and opportunity to respond before any deletion.
- RPA, 1950: Sections 13–25 govern electoral rolls; eligibility criteria include citizenship, minimum age (18 years), ordinary residence
- Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Rule 17 — procedure for deletion; requires individual hearing opportunity
- Special Summary Revision: typically held October–November before election year; ECI issues the notification under Section 21 of RPA, 1950
- BLO (Booth Level Officer): assigned one per polling booth (~900 electors); responsible for roll updates at the ground level
- Voter deletion requires: (i) application or official recommendation; (ii) inquiry; (iii) notice to voter; (iv) ERO order
Connection to this news: The allegation that West Bengal's electoral roll revision involved mass scrutiny without adequate due process — specifically, individual notice to voters before deletion — directly implicates the procedural requirements of the RPA, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 that the ECI is constitutionally bound to enforce.
Key Facts & Data
- Article 324(5): CEC removal — majority of total membership + 2/3 of members present in BOTH Houses
- Grounds for removal: "proved misbehaviour or incapacity"
- CEC Appointment Act, 2023: selection committee — PM, Leader of Opposition, Cabinet Minister; no CJI
- Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023): SC five-judge bench directed independent appointment; Act overrode this
- ECI established: 25 January 1950; multi-member (CEC + 2 ECs) since 1989
- First ever opposition attempt to formally initiate CEC removal: current motion against Gyanesh Kumar
- Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Rule 17 — voter deletion requires individual notice and hearing