Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner: Constitutional Process and Safeguards

26 Sep 2026

Tags: Polity & Constitution   Electoral System   Key electoral mechanisms

Source: The Indian Express

Context: Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar following reports of internal disagreements within the Election Commission of India (ECI).

• Opposition parties have indicated that they may move motions in both Houses of Parliament seeking the CEC's removal.
• The controversy has brought attention to the constitutional safeguards governing the independence and removal of the Election Commission.

Election Commission of India: Constitutional Position

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution.
• It is responsible for the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, State legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President.
• The ECI consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners as the President may determine.
• The CEC is "first among equals" in the multi-member Commission; the CEC is not simply the senior-most Election Commissioner.
• Decisions of the Commission are generally expected to be taken unanimously as far as possible, with the statutory framework providing for decision-making by the Commission.

Appointment and Tenure of Election Commissioners

• The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a three-member Selection Committee under the CEC and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
• The Selection Committee consists of:
  • Prime Minister – Chairperson
  • Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha – Member
  • A Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister – Member
• Under the 2023 Act, appointees should have held a position equivalent to Secretary to the Government of India and possess integrity, knowledge and experience in election management and conduct.
• The term is six years or until attaining 65 years of age, whichever is earlier.
• The CEC receives service conditions and monetary benefits equivalent to those of a Supreme Court judge.

How Can the CEC Be Removed?

• Article 324(5) provides that the CEC can be removed from office “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.”
• Section 11(2) of the 2023 Act incorporates the same constitutional standard.
• Removal is therefore possible only on the grounds of:
  • Proved misbehaviour
  • Incapacity
• The high threshold is intended to protect the CEC from arbitrary or politically motivated removal and preserve the independence of the electoral institution.

What Constitutes Misbehaviour or Incapacity?

• Misbehaviour can include corrupt practices, abuse of office or conduct incompatible with the responsibilities of the constitutional position.
• It may also encompass serious failure to discharge official duties, depending on the facts and applicable legal interpretation.
• Incapacity refers to a condition that makes the office-holder unable to perform the functions of the office.
• Importantly, the allegation must ultimately be established through the prescribed constitutional and statutory process; mere political disagreement or criticism is not itself a ground for removal.

Procedure for Removal: Similar to a Supreme Court Judge

• The removal process broadly follows the procedure applicable to the removal of a Supreme Court judge.
• Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a removal motion must contain specific allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity.
• To initiate the process, the notice of motion must be signed by at least:
  • 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha, or
  • 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.
• The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha may admit or refuse to admit the motion after considering the relevant material.
• If admitted, an inquiry committee is constituted to investigate the allegations and examine the evidence.
• If the inquiry establishes misbehaviour or incapacity, the matter proceeds to Parliament for consideration.
• The removal motion must ultimately be passed by a special majority in each House—a majority of the total membership of that House and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
• After both Houses pass the motion in the constitutionally prescribed manner, the President issues the order of removal.

Why Is the Removal Threshold So High?

• The CEC's security of tenure is considered important for ensuring that the electoral authority can function independently of the government of the day.
• A relatively easy removal mechanism could expose the Commission to political pressure whenever its decisions conflict with the interests of the ruling establishment.
• The constitutional arrangement therefore creates a high institutional barrier, similar to the protection given to Supreme Court judges.

CEC vs Other Election Commissioners

• The Constitution provides a stronger removal safeguard specifically for the CEC.
• Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only through the Supreme Court judge-like procedure.
• Other Election Commissioners and Regional Election Commissioners cannot be removed by the President except on the recommendation of the CEC.
• This distinction is intended to provide the CEC with a particularly strong degree of institutional security of tenure.

Has Any CEC Been Removed?

• No Chief Election Commissioner has been successfully removed through the parliamentary impeachment/removal process so far.
• In the episode referred to in the article, Opposition parties submitted removal motions against CEC Gyanesh Kumar in both Houses on March 12.
• The motions reportedly had the support of 130 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 63 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.
• The motions referred to the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and alleged partisan and discriminatory conduct as well as obstruction of investigations relating to electoral fraud.
• The Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman rejected the motions in April, without assigning reasons, according to the article.
• The controversy also included reported concerns raised internally by other Election Commissioners regarding processes associated with the SIR.