Gyanesh Kumar removal row: How can Chief Election Commissioner be removed?

Opposition parties are preparing a fresh removal motion against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Here is what the Constitution and law say about the appointment and removal of the Election Commission chief

Earlier this week, Opposition parties stepped up their criticism of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar following an investigation by The Indian Express. The investigation reported that the two other Election Commissioners had raised questions over processes linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on at least 14 occasions over 10 months.

 

The Opposition is now preparing to submit a fresh notice in both Houses of Parliament seeking to move a motion for Kumar’s removal. The Congress-led INDIA bloc has also announced plans for nationwide protests over what it has described as the alleged hijacking of the ECI.

 

 

But how are Election Commissioners appointed, and what is the process for removing a CEC?

 

How are Election Commissioners appointed?

 

The ECI is a constitutional body entrusted with conducting elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President.

 

Article 324 of the Constitution provides for the Election Commission, while the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 lays down the framework for their appointment, service conditions and tenure. 

 

Under the 2023 Act, the President appoints the CEC and other Election Commissioners on the recommendation of a three-member Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

 

A person appointed as an Election Commissioner or CEC should have held a post equivalent to the rank of Secretary to the Government of India and should be a person of integrity with knowledge of, and experience in, the management and conduct of elections.

 

The CEC and other Election Commissioners hold office for six years or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. The CEC is also entitled to salary and other conditions of service equivalent to those of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

 

CEC has special protection from removal

 

The CEC has a higher degree of constitutional protection against removal than the other Election Commissioners.

 

Article 324(5) of the Constitution 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 be removed simply by the President, Prime Minister or Union government. The constitutional process requires Parliament to approve the removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Article 124(4), which governs the removal of Supreme Court judges, applies to the CEC through Article 324(5).

 

What are the grounds for removing a CEC?

 

The Constitution permits removal only on two grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Misbehaviour can comprise any corrupt practices or abuse of office. Over the years, courts have interpreted this to include actions which are incompatible with the office of the CEC or the CEC’s failure to discharge official duties. Incapacity refers to a situation where the officer is unable to perform their duties.

 

How is the removal process initiated?

 

The process begins with a notice of a motion for removal signed by the required number of members of either House of Parliament.

 

The notice must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha can admit or refuse to admit the notice after considering the material and applicable provisions.

 

If the motion is admitted, an inquiry committee is constituted to investigate the allegations. The committee consists of a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist.

 

The committee examines the allegations and determines whether the grounds for removal have been established. If the committee does not find the allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity established, the removal process does not proceed to Parliament.

 

If the committee finds that the grounds for removal have been proved, its report is considered as part of the subsequent parliamentary process. Even after the allegations are found to be proved, removal is not automatic. Both Houses of Parliament must pass an address seeking the CEC’s removal.

 

The motion must receive a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. The required address must be passed by both Houses in the same session. Once both Houses pass the address with the constitutionally prescribed majority, it is presented to the President.

 

The President then issues the order removing the CEC from office. Article 124(4) prescribes this parliamentary threshold for Supreme Court judges, while Article 324(5) applies the same manner and grounds to the CEC.

 

How is the removal of other Election Commissioners different?

 

The Constitution makes a distinction between the CEC and the other Election Commissioners. While the CEC can be removed only through the Supreme Court judge-like parliamentary process, an Election Commissioner or Regional Commissioner cannot be removed by the President except on the recommendation of the CEC. Therefore, the removal protection available to the CEC is stronger than that available to the other members of the Election Commission.

 

Has any Chief Election Commissioner been removed in India?

 

No Chief Election Commissioner has been removed through this parliamentary process until now.

 

In April 2026, the Opposition’s notices seeking Kumar’s removal were rejected by both the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker. The notices submitted on March 12 were signed by 63 Rajya Sabha members and 130 Lok Sabha members.

 

Both presiding officers refused to admit the notices, bringing that removal attempt to an end at the preliminary stage. The Opposition subsequently submitted another notice in the Rajya Sabha on April 24, which remains pending.