Opposition Files Notice to Remove Chief Election Commissioner: Constitutional Procedure and Stakes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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