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

'Partial conduct, proved misbehaviour': Oppn moves to impeach CEC Gyanesh Kumar; 193 MPs sign notice

March 13, 2026 7 min read Polity & Governance GS2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The opposition INDIA bloc formally moved to impeach Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on March 13, 2026, citing "partial conduct and proved misbehaviour" — invoking the constitutional grounds specified in Article 324(5) read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
  • The move, backed by 193 MPs (130 Lok Sabha, 63 Rajya Sabha), marks the first-ever formal impeachment attempt against a sitting CEC in India's history.
  • Seven specific charges were enumerated, including: partisan and discriminatory conduct in managing elections; deliberate obstruction of investigation into electoral fraud; and conducting the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in a manner that allegedly caused mass disenfranchisement.
  • The term "proved misbehaviour" in the opposition's notice directly mirrors the constitutional language of Article 124(4), making this a legally precise invocation of the removal mechanism.
  • The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies rejected the charges as politically motivated, arguing the opposition lacks the parliamentary numbers to pass any such motion.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 324(5) — Security of Tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner

Article 324(5) of the Constitution provides that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The grounds for removing a Supreme Court judge are specified in Article 124(4): only on the ground of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity." The phrase "proved misbehaviour" requires a formal finding by an independent inquiry committee — it is not a political judgment.

  • Article 124(4): 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 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.
  • "Proved misbehaviour" is a term of art: it requires evidentiary proof established before an independent committee — mere political disagreement or poor judgement does not meet this standard.
  • The security of tenure provision for the CEC contrasts sharply with that of other Election Commissioners (ECs), who can be removed on the recommendation of the CEC alone — reflecting the hierarchical constitutional design.
  • Article 324(5) was interpreted in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) where the Supreme Court confirmed that the ECI operates as a multi-member body and the CEC's independent constitutional status.

Connection to this news: The opposition has consciously used the constitutional phrase "proved misbehaviour" — not merely "misconduct" — in its notice, signalling that it is invoking the precise constitutional standard, which shifts the burden of investigation to an independent committee rather than allowing a political majority to decide.

The Concept of Free and Fair Elections as a Basic Structure

The Supreme Court of India has recognised free and fair elections as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution — a doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) that holds certain features of the Constitution are beyond the amending power of Parliament. Free and fair elections are an inviolable feature of Indian democracy.

  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Thirteen-judge bench; held by a 7:6 majority that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy its basic structure. Democracy and free elections are among the identified basic structure features.
  • S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (1991): The Supreme Court observed that "the purity of elections is the foundation of democratic governance."
  • People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court upheld the right of voters to information about candidates, holding that the right to know is an integral part of the right to vote under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 324.
  • Disruption of free and fair elections — whether through roll manipulation, biased conduct, or institutional partiality — therefore strikes at a Basic Structure feature and is not merely an ordinary statutory violation.

Connection to this news: By framing their charges as "partial conduct" that undermines electoral integrity, the opposition is implicitly arguing that the CEC's alleged conduct threatens a Basic Structure feature — elevating the significance of the impeachment motion beyond ordinary institutional dispute.

Election Commission's Role in Model Code of Conduct and Electoral Roll Management

The Election Commission of India derives its authority from Article 324, which grants it supervisory, directional, and controlling powers over the entire election process. The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and electoral roll management are two primary instruments through which the ECI exercises this authority. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a statutory exercise under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

  • Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950: Empowers Electoral Registration Officers to delete names from electoral rolls — but only on grounds of death, cessation of ordinary residence, or disqualification, and only after issuing a notice and opportunity to be heard.
  • Rule 20 and Rule 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Govern the process of deletion and summary revision; deletions require publication, opportunity to object, and appeal mechanisms.
  • An SIR involves door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) — opposition parties allege this has been conducted selectively in West Bengal, targeting areas with high minority voter concentration.
  • The ECI's exercise of power under Article 324 is subject to judicial review under Article 226 and Article 32 — the Commission cannot act arbitrarily or in a manner that infringes fundamental rights.

Connection to this news: The specific charge of "mass disenfranchisement" in the impeachment notice refers to the allegation that the SIR exercise resulted in illegitimate deletions — a charge that, if proved, would constitute both a statutory violation and an assault on the right to vote.

Institutional Independence and the Separation of Powers

The independence of the Election Commission is part of a broader constitutional architecture designed to separate the exercise of state power among different institutions: the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Council of Ministers), and independent constitutional bodies (ECI, CAG, UPSC, etc.). Independent constitutional bodies are insulated from day-to-day executive control precisely to prevent incumbent governments from using state machinery to perpetuate their hold on power.

  • The Constitution creates several independent constitutional bodies: the Comptroller and Auditor General (Article 148), the Union Public Service Commission (Article 315–323), the Election Commission (Article 324), the Finance Commission (Article 280), and the National Commissions for SC/ST (Articles 338, 338A).
  • Each is given security of tenure, fixed service conditions, and independent funding (charged on the Consolidated Fund of India in most cases) to insulate them from executive interference.
  • The ECI's budget is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India — meaning it does not require annual Parliamentary appropriation and cannot be used as a lever of financial pressure.
  • The relationship between institutional independence and democratic accountability requires that independent bodies remain genuinely neutral — neither captive to the government nor subject to opposition pressure.

Connection to this news: The opposition's impeachment motion and the government's rejection of it encapsulate the central tension in India's constitutional democracy: how to hold independent constitutional bodies accountable without making them vulnerable to partisan political pressure.

Key Facts & Data

  • Article 324(5): CEC removable only in like manner and on like grounds as a Supreme Court judge
  • Article 124(4): Grounds for removal — proved misbehaviour or incapacity; requires special majority in both Houses
  • Special majority: majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting in each House
  • 193 INDIA bloc MPs signed the impeachment notice (first ever against a sitting CEC)
  • Seven charges, including partisan conduct, obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, mass disenfranchisement
  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Free and fair elections identified as part of Basic Structure
  • T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995): ECI affirmed as multi-member body with plenary powers under Article 324
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 govern the SIR process; deletions require notice and hearing
  • ECI budget is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India (insulated from executive financial pressure)
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Governs investigation procedure; committee of 3 members including SC judge, HC Chief Justice, and distinguished jurist