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

SP supports notice seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s removal: Akhilesh Yadav

March 14, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance GS Paper 2 (Polity Constitutional Bodies Governance)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • On March 13–14, 2026, 193 INDIA bloc MPs (63 from Rajya Sabha, 130 from Lok Sabha) submitted formal notices in both Houses of Parliament seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar — the first such motion in Indian history against a sitting CEC
  • The Samajwadi Party, led by Akhilesh Yadav, expressed support for the removal motion, joining the broader opposition coalition in alleging partisan conduct, obstruction of investigations into electoral fraud, and mass voter disenfranchisement during electoral roll revisions
  • The notices met the constitutional threshold — at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members — for initiating the removal process
  • On April 6, 2026, both presiding officers — Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla — rejected the notices, declining to admit the impeachment motion and citing constitutional and legal grounds
  • This marked the first time in Indian history that Parliament formally considered (and rejected) a motion to remove a sitting Chief Election Commissioner

Static Topic Bridges

Constitutional Provisions — Article 324 and CEC Removal

Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures in the Election Commission of India (ECI). Article 324(5) provides that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

  • Article 324(1): ECI consists of the CEC and such number of other Election Commissioners (ECs) as the President may fix
  • Article 324(5): CEC can only be removed by an order of the President — but only after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a special majority
  • Removal process mirrors Supreme Court judge removal under Article 124(4): address by a majority of total membership of each House AND two-thirds majority of members present and voting
  • Other Election Commissioners (ECs): can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the CEC alone (no parliamentary address required) — a key asymmetry
  • ECI's constitutional independence: CEC's salary charged to Consolidated Fund of India (not subject to parliamentary vote)

Connection to this news: The constitutional design specifically protects the CEC with Supreme Court judge-equivalent removal safeguards, reflecting the framers' intent to insulate the election chief from political pressure. The rejection of the notice by presiding officers means the safeguard worked — but the unprecedented nature of the motion itself signals the depth of opposition concern about ECI's perceived independence.

Chief Election Commissioners and Other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 2023

The 2023 Act replaced the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991. The most significant change relates to appointment: under the 1991 Act, there was no statutory appointment committee — the President appointed on the PM's advice, and by convention a senior IAS officer (often the outgoing CEC) influenced the selection. The 2023 Act created a Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister (Chair), the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM. Importantly, it removed the Chief Justice of India from the appointment process (which the Supreme Court had mandated in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023).

  • 2023 Act: Appointment by Selection Committee (PM + Leader of Opposition + PM-nominated Cabinet Minister)
  • Supreme Court's Anoop Baranwal judgment (March 2023): directed a committee including the CJI until Parliament enacted a law — the 2023 Act subsequently excluded CJI
  • Salary of CEC: equivalent to a Supreme Court Judge (currently ₹2.5 lakh per month + allowances)
  • Term: 6 years or until age 65, whichever is earlier
  • 1991 Act vs 2023 Act: key change is the codification of an appointment committee (previously convention-based), but CJI's exclusion controversially reduced judicial oversight

Connection to this news: The opposition's case for Gyanesh Kumar's removal is partly rooted in the argument that his appointment under the 2023 Act — which critics say gives the ruling party disproportionate influence via the 2-1 majority on the Selection Committee — created a structurally compromised CEC, making the removal motion both a substantive challenge and a political statement against the 2023 Act.

Removal of Constitutional Authority — Process and Precedents

India's Constitution reserves a special parliamentary procedure (an "address") for the removal of judges of superior courts and equivalent constitutional authorities. The requirement of a special majority — absolute majority of total membership plus two-thirds of those present and voting — sets an extremely high bar, making removal nearly impossible without broad cross-party consensus.

  • Same procedure as Supreme Court judge removal (Article 124(4)) applies to CEC removal (Article 324(5))
  • Required majority: (a) majority of total membership of each House AND (b) two-thirds of members present and voting — both conditions simultaneously
  • Inquiry Committee (if motion admitted): typically includes a SC judge, an HC Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist
  • Historical record: no Supreme Court judge, no CEC, no CAG has ever been removed through this process in India's history
  • Presiding officers' role: Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman have discretion to admit or reject notices — their decision is not automatically justiciable

Connection to this news: The rejection by both presiding officers is constitutionally significant — it means the motion never reached the stage of parliamentary debate or committee inquiry. While the opposition may challenge this in court, the presiding officers' discretion in admitting such motions has historically been broad, making judicial review difficult.

Key Facts & Data

  • Article 324(5): CEC removable only via parliamentary address + presidential order (same as SC judge)
  • Required majority: absolute majority of total House membership + two-thirds of members present
  • Motion filed: March 13, 2026; 193 MPs — 63 (Rajya Sabha) + 130 (Lok Sabha)
  • Notices rejected: April 6, 2026 by RS Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan and LS Speaker Om Birla
  • First-ever removal motion against a sitting CEC in Indian history
  • 2023 Act appointment committee: PM (chair) + Leader of Opposition + PM-nominated Cabinet Minister
  • CJI excluded from 2023 Act appointment process (reversal of Anoop Baranwal SC direction)
  • CEC term: 6 years or age 65, whichever is earlier
  • CEC salary equivalent to Supreme Court Judge; charged to Consolidated Fund of India
  • ECI: a constitutional body; superintendence over all elections to Parliament, State Assemblies, President, VP