Opposition parties are preparing a fresh removal motion against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Here is what the Constitution and law prescribe for the appointment, tenure and removal of India’s Chief Election Commissioner

The political debate surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI) has intensified, with Opposition parties preparing another parliamentary move seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The proposed motion comes amid renewed scrutiny of the functioning of the poll panel and reports of differences among Election Commissioners over aspects of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The latest developments have brought renewed attention to a question that is rarely tested in practice: Can a Chief Election Commissioner be removed from office, and if so, what is the constitutional procedure?

The answer lies primarily in Article 324 of the Constitution, read with the constitutional provisions governing removal of Supreme Court judges and the statutory framework created by Parliament.

Election Commission’s Constitutional Role

The Election Commission of India 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 Constitution provides for a Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners as the President may determine.

The appointment, service conditions and tenure of the CEC and other Election Commissioners are additionally governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

How Are the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Appointed?

Under the 2023 law, the President appoints the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners on the recommendation of a three-member Selection Committee.

The committee consists of:

• The Prime Minister

• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha

• A Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister

The law also lays down eligibility requirements. A person considered for appointment is required to have held a post equivalent to the rank of Secretary to the Government of India and should be regarded as a person of integrity with knowledge of, and experience in, the management and conduct of elections.

The CEC and other Election Commissioners ordinarily hold office for six years or until they reach the age of 65, whichever is earlier.

CEC Has Special Constitutional Protection

The most important distinction concerns removal.

Article 324(5) provides the Chief Election Commissioner with a level of protection similar to that available to a Supreme Court judge. It states that the CEC cannot be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

This means that the CEC cannot simply be removed through an executive order by the President, Prime Minister or Union government.

The removal mechanism is linked to Article 124(4), under which a Supreme Court judge can be removed only after Parliament passes the required address on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

The 2023 CEC law also incorporates this constitutional protection.

What Are the Grounds for Removal?

The Constitution specifies two grounds:

Proved Misbehaviour

The allegation must ultimately be established through the prescribed constitutional and statutory process. Misbehaviour can encompass conduct considered incompatible with the office, including serious abuse of official position or other established wrongdoing.

An allegation by itself is therefore not equivalent to a constitutional finding of proved misbehaviour.

Incapacity

The second ground is incapacity, referring to a situation in which the office-holder is unable to discharge the functions of the post.

Importantly, the constitutional standard is not simply whether a political party or group of MPs disagrees with a decision taken by the CEC. The removal mechanism requires the constitutionally prescribed grounds to be established.

How Does a Removal Motion Begin?

The process begins in Parliament.

A notice of a motion seeking removal must be signed by at least:

• 100 members of the Lok Sabha, or

• 50 members of the Rajya Sabha

The notice is submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, depending on the House in which the motion is initiated.

The presiding officer can consider the material available and decide whether to admit or refuse the motion.

This stage is significant because merely collecting the required number of signatures does not itself begin an automatic removal process.

What Happens If the Motion Is Admitted?

If the motion is admitted, an inquiry mechanism is set in motion.

The applicable procedure provides for a three-member inquiry committee consisting of:

• A Judge of the Supreme Court

• The Chief Justice of a High Court

• A distinguished jurist

The committee examines the allegations and conducts the inquiry into whether the grounds cited for removal—misbehaviour or incapacity—have been established.

The concerned office-holder is entitled to participate in the proceedings and respond to the allegations.

If the inquiry does not establish the grounds for removal, the process does not proceed to a parliamentary vote for removal.

If the committee finds the grounds established, its report becomes part of the subsequent parliamentary process.

Parliament Still Has to Approve the Removal

Even a finding by the inquiry committee does not automatically remove the CEC.

The removal motion must subsequently be adopted by both Houses of Parliament.

The constitutional threshold is particularly high. In each House, the motion must receive:

1. A majority of the total membership of that House; and

2. A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Both Houses therefore have to separately approve the address seeking removal.

Only after the required parliamentary process is completed is the address presented to the President, who issues the order of removal.

Why Is the Threshold So High?

The unusually demanding procedure is designed to provide institutional protection to the Election Commission and its leadership.

The CEC administers elections involving Parliament, state legislatures and the highest constitutional offices. A removal mechanism that could be triggered solely through an ordinary executive decision could potentially expose the office to political pressure.

The Constitution therefore places the CEC under a removal framework comparable to that applicable to Supreme Court judges.

At the same time, the mechanism provides a constitutional route for removal when serious allegations of proved misbehaviour or incapacity meet the required evidentiary and parliamentary standards.

How Is the Removal of Other Election Commissioners Different?

The Constitution treats the CEC differently from the other Election Commissioners.

While the CEC can be removed only through the Supreme Court judge-like procedure, an Election Commissioner or Regional Commissioner cannot be removed by the President except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

This distinction gives the CEC stronger statutory and constitutional protection against removal.

What Is the Current Gyanesh Kumar Row?

The current controversy follows reports concerning internal objections allegedly raised by the other two Election Commissioners over certain decisions and processes linked to electoral-roll revision.

Opposition parties have said they intend to submit a fresh removal notice in both Houses of Parliament. Reports indicate that the proposed motion is being prepared and legally examined before submission.

The Election Commission, however, has maintained that decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken with the approval of the Commission.

The current developments should therefore be distinguished from a formal finding of constitutional wrongdoing. Political allegations, internal disagreements and parliamentary notices do not by themselves establish the grounds required for removal.

Earlier Attempts to Remove Gyanesh Kumar

The proposed fresh motion would follow earlier attempts by Opposition MPs to initiate proceedings against the CEC.

Earlier in 2026, notices were submitted seeking Kumar's removal in connection with allegations surrounding electoral-roll revision and the functioning of the Election Commission. Those initial notices did not progress to a completed removal proceeding.

A subsequent notice submitted in the Rajya Sabha has also been reported as pending.

As a result, the latest initiative would represent another attempt to activate the constitutional removal mechanism rather than an immediate removal of the CEC.

No CEC Has Been Removed Through This Process So Far

India has never removed a Chief Election Commissioner through the constitutional parliamentary process.

That makes any attempt to initiate such proceedings significant from an institutional perspective.

However, the constitutional framework is deliberately structured as a multi-stage process. A notice, even if supported by the required number of MPs, does not automatically lead to removal.

The process requires admission by the presiding officer, an inquiry into the allegations, a finding on the prescribed grounds, approval by both Houses with the constitutionally mandated special majority, and finally an order by the President.

What Happens Next?

The immediate question is whether the proposed fresh notices are formally submitted and whether the required number of MPs support them.

If a notice is submitted, the relevant presiding officer will have to consider whether it should be admitted. If admitted, the inquiry stage would become the next major step.

The legal significance of the process is therefore much broader than the political debate surrounding the current controversy. The constitutional framework requires allegations to pass through several institutional safeguards before removal can occur.

For now, the reported preparation of a fresh motion should be understood as the beginning of a possible parliamentary process, not as a removal decision.

Key Takeaways

• The CEC is a constitutional office under Article 324.

• The CEC has stronger removal protection than other Election Commissioners.

• Removal is permitted only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

• A removal notice requires at least 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members' signatures.

• The Speaker or Rajya Sabha Chairman decides whether to admit the motion.

• An admitted motion leads to an inquiry by a three-member committee.

• Both Houses of Parliament must approve the removal with a special majority.

• The President issues the final removal order after the parliamentary process is completed.

• No Chief Election Commissioner has so far been removed through this procedure.

• The current Gyanesh Kumar controversy remains at the stage of a proposed parliamentary initiative, subject to the constitutional process.

The Larger Constitutional Question

The controversy places renewed attention on the balance between institutional independence and accountability within India's election machinery.

The Constitution gives the CEC substantial protection from arbitrary removal, while simultaneously providing a formal mechanism through which Parliament can act when constitutionally recognised grounds are established.

The distinction is important: political disagreement with an Election Commission decision is not itself the constitutional test for removal. The prescribed process requires allegations to be examined and proved before Parliament can exercise its removal power.

The coming stages—whether a fresh notice is formally submitted, whether it is admitted, and whether an inquiry is eventually constituted—will determine whether the current political controversy develops into a substantive constitutional removal proceeding.