As Pressure On Gyanesh Kumar Mounts, How Are Election Commission Members Removed?

For the first time in India's history, a chief election commissioner has faced a parliamentary bid to remove him from office. Opposition INDIA bloc MPs submitted notices signed by 193 members in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in March seeking the ouster of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged bias in the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, particularly in West Bengal.

Both notices were rejected by the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman in early April, without reasons being given, but the episode has put a spotlight on a rarely-used constitutional mechanism: how exactly can a CEC — or an Election Commissioner — be removed from office in India?

A Judge's Level of Protection

Unlike most government appointees, the CEC enjoys security of tenure almost identical to that of a Supreme Court judge. Article 324(5) of the Constitution lays down that the CEC "shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court." This was a deliberate design by the Constitution's framers, meant to insulate the head of the Election Commission of India (ECI) from executive pressure and ensure the institution conducting the country's elections cannot be arm-twisted by the government of the day.

The same Article also specifies that the conditions of service of the CEC cannot be varied to his disadvantage after appointment — another safeguard against indirect coercion. Crucially, this level of protection is reserved for the CEC alone; the other Election Commissioners are on a different, lower footing.

Two Standards, One Commission

While the CEC can only be removed through the judge-style impeachment route, Election Commissioners (ECs) and Regional Commissioners can be removed by the President — but only on the recommendation of the CEC. This asymmetry has long been debated by constitutional scholars, since it effectively places the CEC in a position of authority over colleagues who, under the multi-member Commission structure, are meant to function as equals in decision-making.

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, passed by Parliament, restates this same two-tier arrangement in statute. Section 11 of the Act mirrors the constitutional position: removal of the CEC follows the Supreme Court judge process, while ECs can be eased out on the CEC's recommendation to the President.

The Only Two Grounds

Neither the CEC nor a Supreme Court judge can be removed on political or discretionary grounds. The Constitution restricts removal to just two charges — "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity." Both terms require formal proof through investigation; mere allegations, however serious or numerous, cannot by themselves trigger removal. This is also why the process is popularly called "impeachment," even though the Constitution technically reserves that term for the removal of the President under Article 61. For judges — and, by extension, the CEC — the correct constitutional term is simply "removal."

The Procedure, Step by Step

The removal process borrows directly from Article 124 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which together lay down a multi-stage quasi-judicial procedure. It begins with a notice of motion, which can be introduced in either House of Parliament, provided it is signed by at least 100 members if brought in the Lok Sabha, or at least 50 members if brought in the Rajya Sabha. The notice must then be admitted by the presiding officer — the Speaker in the Lok Sabha or the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha — who examines it and decides whether to allow it to proceed. This is a discretionary gatekeeping stage, as seen in April, when both notices against Gyanesh Kumar were turned down at this very step, with the presiding officers citing their powers under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.

If the motion is admitted, a three-member committee is constituted, comprising a sitting Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist, to investigate the charges. The committee examines the evidence and submits a report on whether the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity stand proved. If the charges are held proved, the motion must then be passed by both Houses of Parliament separately, each by a special majority — a majority of the total membership of the House and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. Only after clearing all these stages does the motion go to the President for the CEC's actual removal.

A Deliberately High Bar

The layered process — from signature thresholds to admission, judicial inquiry, and a double special-majority vote in Parliament — makes removal of a CEC one of the most difficult actions to accomplish under the Constitution. This is by design: framers wanted an election watchdog that could not be removed on a whim by a ruling party with a simple majority.