Opposition files new notice seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar's ouster

Seventy-three members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a fresh removal notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General on April 24, 2026, seeking the ouster of the C...

What Happened

Seventy-three members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a fresh removal notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General on April 24, 2026, seeking the ouster of the Chief Election Commissioner on the constitutional ground of "proved misbehaviour."
The notice lists nine specific charges, including:
Partisan asymmetry in enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct
Failure to act on complaints regarding a Prime Ministerial address to the nation during an election period (April 18)
Mass deletion of voters from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, particularly in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh
Use of questionable criteria in electoral roll revisions amounting to alleged disenfranchisement
An incident involving the use of a state unit's seal on an official Election Commission document in Kerala
Conduct described as "unbecoming" of a constitutional functionary, including a reported incident where a political party delegation was asked to "get lost" at the Election Commission
This is the second motion initiated in 2026; the first — submitted to both Houses earlier — was rejected by Parliament on April 6, 2026 in the first-ever vote on a motion against a sitting Chief Election Commissioner.
The fresh notice has been submitted only to the Rajya Sabha; whether it will be admitted for debate depends on procedural scrutiny by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

Static Topic Bridges

"Proved Misbehaviour or Incapacity" — The Constitutional Standard

Article 324(5) specifies that the Chief Election Commissioner may be removed only on the ground of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — the same standard applicable to Supreme Court judges under Article 124(4).

What "proved" means: - The standard is not merely alleged misbehaviour — it requires proof through a formal inquiry process - For Supreme Court judges, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 prescribes the procedure: a three-member committee (two judges of the Supreme Court/HC and one distinguished jurist) conducts an inquiry and submits a report - No equivalent statute specifically governs the inquiry process for the CEC's removal — a significant legislative gap, though the constitutional standard of "proved" implies a similar inquiry-based approach - "Incapacity" covers physical or mental inability to perform duties — rarely invoked in practice

Key procedural steps (analogous to Supreme Court judge removal): 1. A removal motion notice is given signed by minimum 50 members of Rajya Sabha (or 100 members of Lok Sabha) 2. The presiding officer admits the notice (or rejects it) 3. If admitted, a committee investigates and submits findings 4. If the committee finds proved misbehaviour/incapacity, the motion is put to a vote in each House 5. Requires: (a) absolute majority of total membership AND (b) two-thirds of members present and voting — in EACH House 6. The passed address is presented to the President, who issues the removal order

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Governs Supreme Court/HC judge removal; serves as the closest procedural analogy for CEC removal
The inquiry committee's report is advisory to Parliament — Parliament is not bound by it but practically would be guided by it
No CEC has ever been removed in India's constitutional history; the April 2026 proceedings are historically unprecedented

Connection to this news: The nine charges in the fresh notice are framed as constituting "proved misbehaviour" — though "proved" implies an inquiry-based determination, not parliamentary assertion alone.

Constitutional Architecture of ECI Independence

The Election Commission of India's independence from executive and legislative control rests on several interlocking constitutional provisions.

Why ECI independence is constitutionally critical: - Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975) - The ECI administers elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President — covering the entire democratic structure - If the ECI were subject to executive removal, the ruling government could theoretically influence electoral administration in its favour

Constitutional protections for the CEC: 1. Article 324(5): Removal only via parliamentary address procedure (same as SC judge) — not by executive action 2. Article 324: Service conditions cannot be varied to the CEC's disadvantage after appointment (analogous to Article 125 for SC judges) 3. Fixed tenure: Six years or age 65, whichever earlier — cannot be curtailed except via the removal process 4. Prohibition on post-retirement appointments: The CEC is constitutionally ineligible for further appointment under the Government of India after retirement — ensuring freedom from the incentive to please the government in office

The prohibition on post-retirement government appointments for the CEC is a specific constitutional bar (unique compared to other constitutional functionaries)
This bar does not apply to other Election Commissioners — a noted asymmetry in the protection framework
The prohibition is in Article 324(5): "a Chief Election Commissioner shall not be eligible for reappointment"

Connection to this news: The motion, even if politically motivated, works through the constitutionally prescribed channel — which itself demonstrates the system's built-in insulation. The CEC cannot be removed by an executive order or presidential action alone.

CEC vs. Election Commissioners — Asymmetric Constitutional Protection

A frequently tested UPSC distinction: the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners have very different removal protections.

Feature	Chief Election Commissioner	Other Election Commissioners
Removal procedure	Parliamentary address (same as SC judge)	On recommendation of the CEC
Parliamentary vote required	Yes (absolute + special majority in each House)	No
Protection from President	Cannot be removed by Presidential order alone	No such protection
Post-retirement bar	Cannot hold further government appointment	No equivalent bar

Rationale for asymmetry: - The CEC is constitutionally first among equals — the ultimate authority and face of the ECI's independence - The CEC's recommendation-based removal power over other ECs creates a possible internal check: if the CEC acts in a partisan manner, the other ECs could resist; if the other ECs act improperly, the CEC can recommend removal

Multi-member commission: Made statutory in 1993 (originally a single-member body under the 1950 order)
Election Commissioners: Appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee (under the 2023 Act); their service conditions and removal are governed partly by statute
Article 324(5) proviso: "Provided that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner"

Connection to this news: The notice is specifically targeted at the CEC — the officeholder with the highest constitutional protection. Had the charges been levelled at an EC (not the CEC), the removal route would be simpler (CEC's recommendation) and entirely non-parliamentary.

Separation of Powers and the ECI's Role in Democracy

The independence of the Election Commission embodies the constitutional principle of separation of powers as applied to electoral democracy.

The structural logic: - The Executive (Council of Ministers) is elected through elections administered by the ECI - If the Executive controlled the ECI, it would control the very mechanism that legitimises its own mandate — a structural conflict of interest - Constitutional design deliberately places the ECI outside both the executive and legislative hierarchies, subject only to the Constitution itself

Comparative context: - Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG, Article 148): Audits government expenditure; independent of the executive; removed via parliamentary address — same structural logic as CEC - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, Article 315–323): Conducts civil services examinations; members removed via presidential order after Supreme Court inquiry — slightly different but similar independence rationale - Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court judges: The judicial branch's independence parallels ECI's constitutional insulation

Historical significance of T.N. Seshan's tenure (1990–96): - The 10th CEC, T.N. Seshan, transformed the ECI from a largely passive body into an active electoral watchdog - Seshan rigorously enforced the Model Code of Conduct, deferred elections where free and fair conduct was doubtful, and pushed for voter identity cards (EPIC — Electors' Photo Identity Card) - His tenure established the institutional norms against which subsequent CECs are benchmarked - The government's response was to expand the ECI from a single-member to a three-member body in 1993, which some scholars interpret as an attempt to dilute the individual CEC's authority through collegial decision-making

Connection to this news: The current removal motion, whether or not it succeeds, places the ECI's institutional independence under public and constitutional scrutiny — a debate with direct implications for electoral democracy's legitimacy.

Constitutional Bodies Removable via Parliamentary Address — Complete List

The parliamentary address mechanism for removal (absolute majority + special majority in each House) is reserved for the most independent constitutional offices:

Office	Constitutional Provision
Chief Election Commissioner	Article 324(5)
Comptroller and Auditor General	Article 148(1)
Judges of the Supreme Court	Article 124(4)
Judges of High Courts	Article 217(1)(b)
Lokpal	Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (statutory, not constitutional)

Distinction from President's removal: - The UPSC Chairperson and Members are removed by the President (not Parliament) after a Supreme Court inquiry — a different mechanism, also rigorous but differently structured (Article 317) - The President of India is impeached by Parliament under Article 61 — a constitutional process but through a different procedure (special majority in initiating House; no committee inquiry; other House investigates charges)

Connection to this news: The fresh Rajya Sabha notice places the CEC in the category of officers whose removal requires the most demanding parliamentary procedure — by constitutional design, making such removals extremely difficult and requiring genuine cross-party consensus.

Key Facts & Data

Article 324(5): CEC removable only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity; same procedure as SC judge removal
Double majority requirement: (a) Majority of total membership of each House AND (b) Two-thirds of members present and voting in each House
Post-retirement bar: CEC ineligible for reappointment under the Government of India (Article 324(5) — unique among constitutional functionaries)
Other ECs: Removed on CEC's recommendation only — no parliamentary vote required
First-ever motion: April 2026 proceedings are the first impeachment proceedings against a sitting CEC in India's history
First motion outcome: Rejected by both Houses on April 6, 2026
Fresh notice (April 24, 2026): 73 Rajya Sabha members; 9 charges; submitted to RS Secretary-General
Charges include: MCC asymmetry, voter disenfranchisement via SIR process, conduct unbecoming, use of state party seal on official document
CEC tenure: Six years or age 65, whichever earlier (Election Commission (Constitutional) Amendment Act, 2023)
Election Commission (Constitutional) Amendment Act 2023: New Selection Committee (PM + Cabinet Minister + Leader of Opposition); CJI removed from selection process
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Governs SC/HC judge removal inquiry — closest procedural analogy for CEC removal inquiry
T.N. Seshan (10th CEC, 1990–96): Established institutional norms of MCC enforcement; ECI expanded to three members in 1993
Basic structure principle: Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975)
Comparable offices (parliamentary address removal): CEC, CAG (Article 148), SC judges (Article 124), HC judges (Article 217)