Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Opposition submits notices seeking motion for CEC’s removal to both House today

March 13, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance GS2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • On March 13, 2026, the INDIA bloc opposition formally submitted notices to both the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman seeking the initiation of a removal motion against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar — the first such submission in India's constitutional history.
  • The formal submission to both Houses simultaneously triggers the joint committee procedure under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, under which the Speaker and Chairman must jointly constitute a three-member investigation committee if the notice is admitted.
  • The notices were backed by 130 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs — exceeding the minimum thresholds of 100 and 50 respectively required for admission in each House.
  • The opposition cited seven charges, including "partisan and discriminatory conduct," obstruction of electoral fraud enquiries, and disenfranchisement of voters through the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal and other states.
  • The formal submission converts the political statement into a constitutional proceeding: the Speaker and Chairman must now either admit or reject the notice, and their decision itself becomes subject to judicial review.

Static Topic Bridges

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — Investigation Procedure

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (No. 51 of 1968) regulates the procedure for investigating proved misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court — and by extension, of the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 324(5). The Act operationalises the constitutional provisions and specifies the mechanism for Parliament to address the President.

  • Section 3(1): A notice of motion for presentation of an address to the President may be given by not less than 100 members of the House of the People or not less than 50 members of the Council of States.
  • Section 3(2): The Speaker or Chairman shall consult a committee of persons nominated by them to determine whether the motion is admissible; once admitted, the motion is kept pending while the investigation proceeds.
  • Section 3(3)-(4): A three-member Committee is constituted: (i) a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or the CJI, (ii) a Chief Justice of a High Court, and (iii) a distinguished jurist — nominated by the Speaker or Chairman. Where notices are given in both Houses simultaneously, the Committee is constituted jointly by the Speaker and Chairman.
  • Section 4: The Committee investigates the charges, allows the Judge/CEC an opportunity to present a defence, and submits its findings.
  • Section 6: If the Committee finds proved misbehaviour or incapacity, Parliament may proceed to vote; the motion requires a special majority (majority of total membership AND two-thirds of members present and voting) in each House.
  • Section 7: Upon passage of the address by both Houses, it is presented to the President, who issues the removal order.

Connection to this news: The simultaneous submission to both Houses on March 13 means the Judges (Inquiry) Act's joint committee mechanism is now potentially engaged — the Speaker and Chairman must act in tandem, making this a formal constitutional process rather than merely a political manoeuvre.

Constitutional Independence of the Election Commission

The insulation of the Election Commission from executive control is a foundational design principle of the Indian Constitution. The framers consciously vested elections oversight in an independent commission rather than in the executive, recognising that free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democratic legitimacy. The security of tenure granted to the CEC by Article 324(5) — mirroring that of a Supreme Court judge — was intended to insulate the office from political pressure.

  • Article 324(5): CEC's removal only by impeachment-like process; conditions of service cannot be varied to his disadvantage post-appointment (this prevents indirect pressure through service condition changes).
  • Article 324(6): President shall make available to the ECI such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions — ensuring the Commission has administrative capacity.
  • The ECI's functional independence has been affirmed in several Supreme Court judgments, including T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), which held that the Election Commission has wide powers under Article 324 to issue directions necessary for conducting free and fair elections.
  • Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978): The Supreme Court held that Article 324 confers plenary powers on the Election Commission to take all necessary steps to ensure free and fair elections.

Connection to this news: The removal attempt, regardless of outcome, tests the constitutional architecture — specifically whether the procedural safeguards around the CEC's tenure are robust enough to deter partisanship while remaining accessible as a check against genuine misconduct.

Electoral Roll Revision and Disenfranchisement Concerns

Voter roll preparation and maintenance is a core function of the Election Commission under Article 324 read with the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an extraordinary exercise undertaken in specific constituencies or states where rolls are deemed unreliable or outdated, involving door-to-door verification and addition/deletion of entries.

  • Sections 13–23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 govern voter registration; the ECI prescribes detailed rules on inclusion, deletion, and revision of rolls.
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Rule 21 and Rule 22 govern deletions — entries can be removed only on specific grounds (death, shift of residence, disqualification) after due notice and hearing.
  • Illegal deletion of legitimate voter names from rolls can constitute an infringement of the right to vote — which, while not a fundamental right per se, has been held by the Supreme Court to be a statutory right that flows from the constitutional right to contest elections under Article 326.
  • The Model Code of Conduct does not apply at the time of electoral roll revision (rolls can be revised before election schedules are announced), which is why pre-election SIR exercises are particularly sensitive.

Connection to this news: The opposition's central allegation is that the SIR exercise in West Bengal — being conducted ahead of state elections — disproportionately targets voter profiles associated with opposition parties, amounting to institutional manipulation of the franchise.

Precedents of Institutional Accountability Motions in India

India has a limited history of formal removal motions against constitutional office-holders. The impeachment procedure under the Judges (Inquiry) Act has never been successfully used to remove a Supreme Court judge in India's post-independence history — every motion that was brought has either been withdrawn or failed.

  • The only impeachment motion against a Chief Justice of India was initiated in 1991 against Chief Justice V. Ramaswami — the motion failed in the Lok Sabha as the ruling Congress party did not vote, despite the investigation committee finding proved misbehaviour.
  • The Rajya Sabha in 2011 initiated, and then withdrew, a removal motion against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court (who subsequently resigned).
  • No impeachment motion has ever been successfully carried through to completion in India.
  • This 2026 removal motion against CEC Gyanesh Kumar is the first time the Judges (Inquiry) Act mechanism has been invoked for a constitutional body other than the judiciary.

Connection to this news: The historical record shows that impeachment-type motions in India function primarily as instruments of constitutional accountability and public pressure rather than as effective removal mechanisms — but their constitutional significance lies precisely in that accountability function.

Key Facts & Data

  • March 13, 2026: Notices formally submitted to both Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman — a constitutional first
  • 193 INDIA bloc MPs signed: 130 (Lok Sabha) + 63 (Rajya Sabha)
  • Admission thresholds: minimum 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs (both met independently)
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (No. 51 of 1968) governs the investigation procedure
  • Three-member investigation committee (joint, since notices submitted to both Houses simultaneously): SC judge + HC Chief Justice + distinguished jurist
  • Special majority required for removal: majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting in each House
  • T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): SC affirmed plenary powers of ECI under Article 324
  • Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC (1978): SC affirmed ECI's power to take all necessary steps for free and fair elections
  • Only prior impeachment motion against a SC judge: Chief Justice V. Ramaswami (1991) — failed in Lok Sabha