Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar declined to comment on questions regarding the opposition’s move to initiate a motion in Parliament seeking his removal from office, as the political dispute surrounding the Election Commission continues to intensify.
The issue arose during a press conference on Sunday where Kumar was present to announce the schedule for Assembly elections in four states and one Union Territory. During the interaction with reporters, questions were raised about the opposition parties submitting notices in Parliament to move a motion for his removal. However, Kumar chose not to respond to those questions and proceeded with the briefing related to the election schedule.
The opposition’s action marks an unusual development, as notices have been submitted in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha seeking to initiate proceedings to remove the Chief Election Commissioner. Opposition parties have accused Kumar of displaying a partisan approach and have alleged that certain decisions taken by the Election Commission have benefited the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
One of the key issues cited by the opposition relates to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Opposition leaders have argued that the revision process was conducted in a manner that they believe favoured the BJP. They have accused the Election Commission of acting in ways that allegedly assisted the ruling party during electoral processes.
The constitutional provisions governing the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner make the process particularly stringent. Under India’s constitutional framework, the CEC enjoys protections similar to those granted to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. As a result, the removal of a Chief Election Commissioner requires a complex parliamentary process similar to impeachment proceedings against a judge.
According to Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India, the Chief Election Commissioner cannot be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. This means that removal can only take place if Parliament determines that there has been “proven misbehaviour or incapacity.”
The procedure requires that a motion seeking the removal of the CEC be introduced in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. For the motion to succeed, it must be passed by a special majority in Parliament. This includes two conditions: a majority of the total membership of the House and a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.
Such a high threshold makes the removal of a Chief Election Commissioner extremely rare and politically difficult. The constitutional provision was designed to ensure the independence of the Election Commission and to prevent arbitrary removal of its head.
In contrast, other Election Commissioners do not enjoy the same level of protection. They can be removed from office by the President of India based on a recommendation made by the Chief Election Commissioner. This distinction was built into the constitutional framework to strengthen the autonomy of the institution by safeguarding the position of the CEC.
The opposition’s decision to submit notices in both Houses of Parliament has intensified the political debate over the functioning and independence of the Election Commission. As the matter moves into the parliamentary arena, the coming weeks are expected to witness continued political discussion over the allegations and the role of the election watchdog.
