First-Ever Motion to Remove a CEC: Decoding Article 324(5) and the Battle for Election Commission Independence
Introduction: An Unprecedented Constitutional Move
On March 13, 2026, in a political and constitutional first for India, 193 Members of Parliament from the INDIA bloc (including the AAP) submitted a formal notice in both Houses of Parliament seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
Never before in India’s history has a sitting head of the Election Commission faced formal removal proceedings. The Opposition’s motion mounts a quasi-judicial challenge against the poll panel’s credibility, citing severe allegations of bias. For UPSC aspirants, this development brings Article 324(5) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 directly into focus under GS Paper II (Polity and Constitutional Bodies).
The Charges: Why the Opposition Wants the CEC Removed
The Opposition’s 10-page notice explicitly uses the constitutional terminology of “proved misbehaviour” and lists seven specific charges against CEC Gyanesh Kumar:
- Partisan and Discriminatory Conduct: Accusations that the CEC has acted with partiality, frequently favouring the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during electoral processes.
- Mass Disenfranchisement: Allegations that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was manipulated, particularly in states like West Bengal and Bihar, resulting in the wrongful deletion of genuine voters from minority and marginalized communities.
- Obstruction of Justice: Claims that the CEC deliberately obstructed and delayed investigations into documented cases of electoral fraud and irregularities.
The Constitutional Process for Removal
The Constitution framers ensured that the Election Commission remains insulated from executive pressure. Article 324(5) dictates that the CEC cannot be removed from office except in the “like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.”
The procedural mechanics are governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The step-by-step process is as follows:
1. Initiation of the Motion
A removal motion requires the signatures of at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha OR 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. The current notice easily crosses this threshold, having secured signatures from 130 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs.
2. Admission by the Presiding Officers
The notice is submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. They have the discretion to either admit or refuse the motion. As per Section 3 of the 1968 Act, if notices are given on the same day in both Houses (as in this case), the motion must be admitted in both Houses for the process to move forward.
3. The Inquiry Committee
If admitted, the presiding officers will jointly constitute a three-member fact-finding committee to investigate the charges. This committee must consist of:
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI.
- The Chief Justice of a High Court.
- A “distinguished jurist.”
The committee functions like a court, where charges are investigated, and the CEC has the right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defence.
4. Voting and Presidential Order
If the committee finds the CEC guilty of “proven misbehaviour or incapacity,” the report is submitted to Parliament. The motion must then be passed by each House via a Special Majority (a majority of the total membership of the House AND a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting). Only after both Houses pass it does the President issue the final removal order.
Constitutional Concerns: EC Independence at Stake
While the ruling coalition’s numerical superiority makes the actual passage of this motion highly unlikely, the move highlights deep structural concerns regarding the Election Commission’s autonomy:
1. The Appointment vs. Removal Disparity:
A glaring constitutional loophole is that while the CEC enjoys judicial-level security of tenure, the other two Election Commissioners (ECs) do not. Under Article 324(5), ECs can be removed by the President simply on the recommendation of the CEC. Experts argue this makes ECs vulnerable to internal and executive pressure, compromising the panel’s collective independence.
2. The 2023 Selection Act Controversy:
The Opposition cites the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 as the root of the current crisis. This Act replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet Minister, giving the Executive a 2:1 majority in selecting the CEC and ECs. Critics argue this has eroded the institutional neutrality of the poll body.
3. Institutional Legitimacy:
Even if the motion fails, it serves as a powerful political tool to legally question the credibility of the umpire managing the world’s largest democracy. It forces a parliamentary debate on electoral integrity during active election cycles.
UPSC Relevance (GS Paper II)
For UPSC Mains, this topic is directly linked to:
- Constitutional Bodies: Structure, mandate, and independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
- Separation of Powers: The role of the legislature (impeachment process) in holding constitutional functionaries accountable.
- Electoral Reforms: Debates surrounding the appointment and removal processes of the ECs to ensure absolute neutrality.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the motion requires the signatures of at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha.
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha have the authority to admit or reject the motion.
If the motion is admitted, a three-member committee is formed comprising a Supreme Court Judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
No. A major constitutional disparity is that regular Election Commissioners do not have this protection. They can be removed by the President simply upon the recommendation of the CEC.
The 193 INDIA bloc MPs have alleged partisan and discriminatory conduct, deliberate obstruction of investigations into electoral fraud, and mass disenfranchisement of voters during electoral roll revisions.
No. This 2026 notice against Gyanesh Kumar is the first time in Indian history that a formal removal motion has been initiated against a sitting CEC. Q1. What is the constitutional ground for removing the Chief Election Commissioner?
Q2. How many MPs are required to initiate a removal motion against the CEC?
Q3. Who decides whether to admit the removal motion?
Q4. What is the composition of the Inquiry Committee?
Q5. Can other Election Commissioners be removed in the same way?
Q6. What are the main charges against CEC Gyanesh Kumar in the 2026 motion?
Q7. What kind of majority is needed to pass the removal motion?
Q8. Has a CEC ever been removed in India?
