Opposition files fresh Rajya Sabha notice to remove CEC

Seventy-three members of the Rajya Sabha from opposition parties submitted a fresh notice seeking removal of the Chief Election Commissioner, listing nine ch...

What Happened

Seventy-three members of the Rajya Sabha from opposition parties submitted a fresh notice seeking removal of the Chief Election Commissioner, listing nine charges including allegations of partisan conduct and electoral malpractice. This was described as their second such attempt, a previous notice having been rejected.
The notice revives constitutional questions about the procedure for removing the Chief Election Commissioner, the adequacy of current protections for the Election Commission's independence, and the controversy surrounding the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 324 — Constitutional Position of the Election Commission

The Election Commission of India derives its existence directly from Article 324 of the Constitution, under Part XV ("Elections"). It is a permanent constitutional body, not a statutory creation, which distinguishes it from many other regulatory institutions.

Article 324(1): The superintendence, direction, and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, and elections to the offices of President and Vice-President, shall be vested in the Election Commission.
Composition: One Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and such number of other Election Commissioners (ECs) as the President may fix from time to time. Since 1993, the Commission has functioned as a multi-member body with three commissioners.
Appointment: Under Article 324(2), the CEC and ECs are appointed by the President — the provision originally left the appointment process to Parliament to regulate by law. Until 2023, there was no such law, and appointments were made by the executive alone.
Tenure and Service Conditions: The CEC holds office until the age of 65 years or for a term of 6 years, whichever is earlier. ECs have the same age limit but can be removed by the President on the CEC's recommendation.

Connection to this news: The constitutional position of the CEC — appointed by the President, protected by a removal procedure modelled on Supreme Court judges — reflects the framers' intent to insulate the Election Commission from executive control. The notice to remove the CEC is a constitutional mechanism for parliamentary accountability of this body.

Removal Procedure — Article 324(5): Same as a Supreme Court Judge

Article 324(5) provides that the CEC shall not be removed from office except "in like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court." This is a very high constitutional bar.

Constitutional basis for SC Judge removal: Article 124(4) — a judge may be removed by the President upon an address by both Houses of Parliament in the same session, supported by:
(i) A majority of total membership of each House (absolute majority), and
(ii) Not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House (special majority).
The grounds for removal are: proved misbehaviour or incapacity only.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 governs the procedural steps: a notice must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members (or 50 Rajya Sabha members), a three-member inquiry committee (comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist) investigates the charges, and their finding is reported to Parliament.
The same procedural protections apply to the CEC by virtue of Article 324(5)'s cross-reference.

Connection to this news: The 73-member Rajya Sabha notice is the initiation step. For a valid removal motion, the notice must first be examined for admissibility by the Chairman; if admitted, an inquiry committee is constituted; if the inquiry committee finds charges proved, Parliament must then pass the removal address by the requisite majority. The rejection of the previous notice and this fresh attempt indicate the process is at its earliest threshold stage.

The Election Laws Amendment Act 2023 — Controversy and Criticism

For decades, Article 324(2) operated without a parliamentary law governing EC appointments. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 finally established a statutory framework — but it was immediately controversial.

Selection Committee: The Act established a three-member selection committee comprising: the Prime Minister (Chair), the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of the largest opposition party), and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Controversy: The Supreme Court's earlier direction in Anoop Baranwal (2023 — see below) had mandated a committee including the Chief Justice of India as a safeguard of independence. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a second government-nominated Cabinet minister, effectively restoring majority control to the executive.
The Act retained the existing service conditions and removal procedures from Article 324(5).
Opposition parties and constitutional scholars argued the Act undermined EC independence by giving the executive an effective two-to-one majority on the appointment panel — the Leader of Opposition being the only non-government voice.
The Act came into force before the 2024 General Elections, and the appointment of the current CEC was made under its provisions.

Connection to this news: Critics of the current CEC's appointment argue that the appointment process itself — from which judicial oversight was excluded by the 2023 Act — renders the CEC's position constitutionally suspect. The removal notice is partly an expression of this structural concern.

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) — Supreme Court on EC Appointments

The Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution Bench judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (March 2, 2023) is a watershed ruling on the constitutional independence of the Election Commission.

Holding: The Court held that the constitutional silence on the appointment mechanism for CEC and ECs — Article 324(2) leaving it to Parliament — did not mean that appointments could remain entirely in executive hands without independent oversight.
Exercising its powers under Article 142 (doing complete justice), the Court directed that until Parliament enacted an appropriate law, the CEC and ECs shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee comprising: (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and (iii) the Chief Justice of India.
The Court emphasised that the Election Commission's independence is a basic feature of the Constitution; the appointment process must structurally insulate it from executive dominance.
Parliament's response: Within months, the 2023 Act was enacted, replacing the CJI with a Cabinet minister — a move that some scholars characterised as legislating away the Court's independence safeguard.
The 2023 Act is itself under challenge before the Supreme Court, with petitions arguing it violates the basic structure.

Connection to this news: The Anoop Baranwal judgment provides the constitutional backdrop to the current controversy. An EC whose appointment was made under a process criticised as insufficiently independent faces a removal motion — making both the appointment and removal procedures simultaneously contentious.

The Election Commission's Constitutional Independence — Why It Matters

The Election Commission occupies a unique position in India's constitutional architecture: it is the guardian of the electoral process that gives democratic legitimacy to all other constitutional institutions, including Parliament and the executive.

The CEC's security of tenure (removal only by the Article 124(4) process) is designed to prevent executive intimidation.
The Model Code of Conduct, delimitation of constituencies, recognition of political parties, and management of elections are all functions exclusively vested in the EC.
The independence of the EC was specifically highlighted in the Constituent Assembly Debates — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and others emphasised that free and fair elections required an election machinery insulated from political pressure.
Analogous bodies in comparative constitutions (e.g., South Africa's Independent Electoral Commission, Election Commission of Sri Lanka) similarly have strong independence protections — the structural design question of how to insulate an appointments process from the very government whose electoral fortunes depend on the body being appointed is a universal challenge.

Connection to this news: The removal notice — irrespective of its ultimate outcome — serves a constitutional function: it is a parliamentary mechanism to publicly test the independence and conduct of a constitutional official through a structured accountability process.

Key Facts & Data

Article 324: Constitutional basis for the Election Commission of India.
CEC removal standard: Article 324(5) — same as Supreme Court judge removal under Article 124(4).
Removal requires: Absolute majority + two-thirds of members present and voting in both Houses, in the same session.
Grounds: Proved misbehaviour or incapacity only.
Rajya Sabha notice threshold: Minimum 50 Rajya Sabha members required to move a removal notice.
Current notice: Filed by 73 Rajya Sabha members (opposition) — lists 9 charges.
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (March 2, 2023): Supreme Court directed three-member appointment committee: PM + Leader of Opposition + CJI.
Election Laws Amendment Act, 2023: Replaced CJI with a Cabinet minister on the appointment panel.
CEC term: 6 years or age 65, whichever is earlier.
ECs can be removed by the President on the CEC's recommendation — a lower protection than the CEC enjoys.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Governs the inquiry process for removal of judges (and by extension, the CEC).
The 2023 appointment process under the new Act is itself under challenge before the Supreme Court.