Removal Proceedings Against Chief Election Commissioner

Mr. Gyanesh Kumar (2026)

In March 202G, over 190 Members of Parliament initiated removal proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging “proved misbehaviour” and partiality, particularly concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. This is the first time in India’s history that a formal motion under Article 324(5) has been moved against a sitting CEC, as no Chief Election Commissioner has ever been removed from office before nor any proceedings has been initiated against any CEC. The case represents the first real test of the constitutional safeguards designed to ensure the independence of the Election Commission of India.

Constitutional Position of the Election Commission

The Election Commission of India (ECI), established under Article 324, exercises “superintendence, direction, and control” over elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President. The CEC enjoys robust security of tenure, removable only on proven misbehaviour or incapacity, in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge. Other Election Commissioners can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the CEC, creating a hierarchy of protection.

Procedure for Removal of the CEC

1. Initiation of Motion: Motion moved in either House of Parliament, supported by at least 100 MPs in Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in Rajya Sabha.

2. Inquiry Committee: Once admitted by the Speaker/Chairman, a three-member inquiry committee is formed, typically comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist, to examine the charges.

3. Discussion in Parliament: If the committee finds the charges valid, both Houses debate the motion.

4. Voting Requirement: Motion must pass with a special majority—majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.

5. Formal Removal: Upon successful passage, the President issues the order of removal, and the CEC vacates office.

This strict process ensures that removal is based on conclusive proof and broad parliamentary consensus, protecting the independence of the office from political pressures.

Significance and Implications

The Gyanesh Kumar case highlights the delicate balance between independence and accountability in India’s electoral system. While the constitutional safeguards protect the CEC from arbitrary removal, this first-ever invocation of Article 324(5) also raises debates about political pressures, institutional trust, and the credibility of the Election Commission.