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

Opposition seeks motion to remove CEC, Gyanesh Kumar stays silent

March 15, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance GS2 (Polity Constitutional Bodies Governance)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • 193 opposition MPs — 130 from the Lok Sabha and 63 from the Rajya Sabha — signed and submitted notices in both Houses seeking a motion for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
  • This is the first time in India's history that a notice has been moved seeking the removal of a sitting CEC.
  • The opposition, led by the INDIA bloc (including Trinamool Congress, Congress, AAP, and others), accused the CEC of "partisan and discriminatory conduct," "deliberate obstruction of investigation of electoral fraud," and "mass disenfranchisement."
  • The primary flashpoint is the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with opposition parties alleging that the exercise is being misused to delete genuine voters, particularly in West Bengal ahead of state elections.
  • CEC Gyanesh Kumar declined to respond to questions about the removal motion during a press interaction, saying he would not comment on the matter.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 324(5) — Constitutional Protection and Removal of the CEC

Article 324 of the Constitution establishes the Election Commission of India (ECI) and vests in it the superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, and to the offices of President and Vice President.

Article 324(5) provides: "Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment and he shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court."

  • The CEC's security of tenure is modelled on Supreme Court judges — a deliberate constitutional choice to insulate the election watchdog from executive pressure.
  • Before the Chief Election Commissioners and Other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 2023, the CEC's removal procedure was purely constitutional (Article 324). The 2023 Act codified service conditions but did not change the removal process.
  • Election Commissioners (other than the CEC): Under Article 324(5), they can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the CEC — a lower bar than the CEC's own removal. The 2023 Act controversially removed this asymmetry for removal protection of ECs (a provision challenged in the Supreme Court).
  • The Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) held that the appointment of the CEC/ECs should be by a three-member committee: the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition (or largest opposition party leader), and Chief Justice of India — pending legislative action. The Parliament subsequently enacted the 2023 Act replacing the CJI with a Cabinet minister on the committee.

Connection to this news: The opposition's removal motion tests the Article 324(5) procedure for the first time — a constitutional provision that has never been invoked against a sitting CEC in 75 years of Indian democracy.

Removal Procedure — Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and Parliamentary Process

The CEC's removal follows the same procedure as removal of a Supreme Court judge under Article 124(4), as mandated by Article 324(5). The detailed procedure is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.

  • Step 1 — Initiation: A removal motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or at least 50 Rajya Sabha members. The notice is submitted to the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha).
  • Step 2 — Admission: The Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject the motion. If admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted comprising (a) a sitting SC judge (nominated by CJI), (b) a Chief Justice of a High Court (nominated by CJI), and (c) a distinguished jurist (nominated by the Speaker/Chairman).
  • Step 3 — Inquiry: The committee investigates the charges, gives the CEC opportunity to be heard, and submits a report on whether charges are proved.
  • Step 4 — Vote: Both Houses must independently pass the motion by (a) majority of total membership (absolute majority) and (b) two-thirds majority of members present and voting (special majority). Both thresholds must be met.
  • Step 5 — Address to President: The motion, once passed by both Houses in the same session, is sent as an address to the President, who orders the removal.

Connection to this news: The opposition's 193 signatures cross the 100-member (Lok Sabha) and 50-member (Rajya Sabha) threshold for initiating the inquiry, but passing the motion would require a majority of total membership — which the opposition does not command.

Election Commission's Independence — Constitutional Design and Recent Reforms

The independence of the ECI is a foundational element of Indian constitutional democracy. The Constituent Assembly debates reveal that the framers (particularly Dr. B.R. Ambedkar) deliberately designed a single-person Election Commission initially, with strong security of tenure, to prevent executive control of elections.

  • ECI composition: Chief Election Commissioner + two Election Commissioners (multi-member since 1989, when the Commission became three-membered under the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991).
  • The ECI operates under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951.
  • The ECI's quasi-judicial and administrative powers include: delimitation (with Delimitation Commission), de-recognition of parties, freeze of party symbols, Model Code of Conduct enforcement (MCC — non-statutory but binding by convention).
  • Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls: A process for updating voter lists, governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Opposition's allegation is that SIR is being used selectively to remove voter names.
  • The Anoop Baranwal judgment (2023): SC held the appointment process excluding the CJI violated constitutional values of independence — Parliament's 2023 Act replacing the CJI with a Cabinet minister was seen as undermining the SC's direction.

Connection to this news: The removal motion reflects a broader political contest over ECI's independence — the opposition arguing it has been compromised, the ruling side defending the appointment and conduct of the CEC. The constitutional architecture makes actual removal nearly impossible without ruling party support, turning the motion into a political statement rather than a genuine removal attempt.

Key Facts & Data

  • Article 324(5): CEC removed only "in like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court"
  • Removal threshold: Both Houses must pass — (a) absolute majority (majority of total membership) + (b) two-thirds of members present and voting
  • Lok Sabha: 130 opposition MPs signed notice; threshold to initiate: 100 MPs
  • Rajya Sabha: 63 opposition MPs signed notice; threshold to initiate: 50 MPs
  • This is the first notice ever filed seeking removal of a sitting CEC in India
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Governs the inquiry committee procedure for judge/CEC removal
  • Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): SC directed CEC appointment via PM + LoP + CJI committee
  • Chief Election Commissioners and Other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 2023: Replaced CJI with a Cabinet minister on appointment committee
  • Seven charges listed in the notice: including partisan conduct, obstruction of investigation into electoral fraud, and mass disenfranchisement