Opposition demands the Chief Election Commissioner's exit
Can Parliament remove a Chief Election Commissioner, and how hard is it?
Published 25 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
Opposition leaders renewed their demand that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign, and asked the Supreme Court to act, after the Indian Express reported on 23 September that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally recorded objections 14 times in 10 months. Their objections related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, including being kept out of decisions and the addition and deletion of voters' names.
This follows an earlier attempt at removal. On 12 March 2026, 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members gave notice of a motion to remove the CEC under Article 324(5), listing seven charges of 'proved misbehaviour', including partisan conduct and mass disenfranchisement through the SIR. On 6 April, the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman refused to admit the notices under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, saying the charges were not proved. A fresh notice with nine charges was submitted in the Rajya Sabha by 73 members on 24 April.
Separately, petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection committee, remain pending before the Supreme Court. The Act was passed after the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal (March 2023) had put the CJI on the panel until Parliament legislated.
Prelims facts
- Under Article 324(5), the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
- Other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
- The CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 set up a selection committee of the PM, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister, replacing the CJI who had been added by the Anoop Baranwal judgment (2023).
Quick recall
- Which Article protects the Chief Election Commissioner's tenure?
- Article 324(5): the CEC can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds of a Supreme Court judge.
- How can an Election Commissioner (other than the CEC) be removed?
- Only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
- What are the grounds for removing a CEC?
- Proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the same as for a Supreme Court judge.
- How many MPs must sign a notice to remove a CEC?
- At least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, as for a judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- What happened to the March 2026 removal notices against CEC Gyanesh Kumar?
- The Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman refused to admit them on 6 April 2026.
- Who selects the CEC and ECs under the 2023 Act?
- A committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM.
- What did Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) decide?
- Until Parliament made a law, the CEC and ECs would be chosen by the PM, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
- What did the Indian Express report on 23 September 2026?
- That Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record 14 times in 10 months to steps in the Special Intensive Revision.
Prelims practice question
Consider the following statements about the Election Commission of India:
1. The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge.
2. An Election Commissioner can be removed by the President without any recommendation.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (a) 1 only. Article 324(5) protects the CEC like a Supreme Court judge. Other ECs can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation, so statement 2 is wrong.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Independence and credibility of the Election Commission and the integrity of electoral rolls
- How to use this
Use it to show how the Commission's roll revision power under Article 324 is now contested from inside the Commission and by Opposition MPs, raising questions about its limits.
- Election Commissioners Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally recorded objections 14 times in 10 months on the SIR, including being kept out of decisions and on additions and deletions of names.
- The March 2026 removal notice against CEC Gyanesh Kumar listed charges including mass disenfranchisement through the SIR.
- Safeguard proposal: publish dissent notes and reasons for roll deletions, with a clear appeal route, so roll revision does not cause disenfranchisement.
- How to use this
Use it to conclude that the Commission's moral authority to enforce norms like the Model Code depends on perceived neutrality, now questioned by charges of partisanship.
- In 2026 Opposition MPs gave notices to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar listing charges including partisan conduct; the first notices were not admitted on 6 April and a fresh nine-charge notice followed on 24 April.
- Under the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 the selection committee is the PM, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister, which critics say gives the executive a 2:1 majority.
- How to use this
Use it to show that trust in the ECI now hinges on its appointment, removal and internal functioning, not only on EVMs.
- On 12 March 2026, 130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs gave notice to remove the CEC under Article 324(5); on 6 April the presiding officers refused it under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- Under Article 324(5) the CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, but other ECs can be removed on the CEC's recommendation, an unequal protection.
- Petitions against the 2023 Act, which replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection panel set by Anoop Baranwal (March 2023), remain pending.
- How to use this
Use it to argue that reforms securing the Commission's own independence are central to electoral reform and democratic quality.
- Other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation; the Law Commission's 255th Report (2015) recommended equal removal protection for all commissioners.
- The 2023 Act's selection committee gives the executive a 2:1 majority; a neutral collegium for appointments is a suggested reform.
- The law requires the Commission to act unanimously where possible, otherwise by majority; publishing dissent notes, after two ECs recorded 14 objections in 10 months, would build trust.
Tests the composition and powers of the Commission whose head is now under attack.
The nature of the right to vote is central to the roll-deletion concerns raised against the Special Intensive Revision.
Mains practice question
The independence of the Election Commission depends as much on its internal functioning as on its constitutional safeguards. Discuss in light of recent developments. (250 words)
Model answer
The Election Commission (ECI) under Article 324 supervises elections to Parliament, State legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President. Recent reports of dissent by two Election Commissioners over the electoral roll revision have shifted the debate from external pressure to internal functioning.
Constitutional safeguards
- Removal of the CEC only like a Supreme Court judge (Article 324(5)), which needs a special majority in both Houses.
- Conditions of service cannot be varied to the CEC's disadvantage after appointment.
- Other ECs removable only on the CEC's recommendation.
Gaps exposed
- Appointments: the 2023 Act gives the executive a 2:1 majority in the selection committee, which the Anoop Baranwal judgment had sought to balance with the CJI.
- Unequal protection: ECs lack the CEC's removal protection, so they can be pressured through the CEC.
- Collective decision-making: the law requires the Commission to act unanimously where possible and otherwise by majority. Dissent that is recorded but not disclosed weakens public trust.
- Roll revision: large deletions without transparent reasons risk disenfranchisement, the core harm the ECI exists to prevent.
Way forward
- Equal removal protection for all commissioners, as the Law Commission's 255th Report (2015) recommended.
- A neutral collegium for appointments.
- Publication of dissent notes and reasons for roll deletions, with a clear appeal route.
The ECI's authority rests on voters believing it is impartial. Constitutional safeguards set the floor; transparent internal functioning is what makes that belief durable.
The basics
Why this matters
The Election Commission of India runs elections for Parliament, State Assemblies, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Its credibility decides whether losing parties accept results. In 2026, the Opposition sought to remove the Chief Election Commissioner, and two Election Commissioners were reported to have recorded objections to decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Both raise the same question: how independent is the Commission, and how is it held to account?
How the Commission is built
Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission. Since 1993 it has had three members: the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners, who decide by majority where they cannot agree. The CEC and ECs are appointed by the President. Since the 2023 Act, a selection committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister recommends names.
- 1Chief Election CommissionerRemovable only like a Supreme Court judge
- 2Two Election CommissionersRemovable on the CEC's recommendation
- 3Selection committeePM, Leader of Opposition, Cabinet Minister
- 4Majority ruleDecides when members disagree
How a CEC can be removed
Article 324(5) protects the CEC like a Supreme Court judge. Removal needs proved misbehaviour or incapacity, a motion signed by enough MPs, an inquiry, and a special majority in both Houses. The process follows the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. In April 2026, the presiding officers of both Houses refused to admit the Opposition's notices at the very first step.
- 1Notice of motionSigned by at least 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
- 2AdmissionThe Speaker or Chairman decides whether to admit it.
- 3InquiryA three-member committee investigates the charges.
- 4Special majorityBoth Houses pass the motion by a special majority.
- 5RemovalThe President orders removal.
Two kinds of protection
The CEC and the other two commissioners are not equally protected. The CEC cannot be removed easily, while the others can be removed on the CEC's recommendation. Critics say this lets pressure flow through the CEC, and that the 2023 appointment law gives the executive a majority on the selection committee.
- Removal like a Supreme Court judge
- Needs proved misbehaviour or incapacity
- Service conditions cannot be worsened
- Removal on CEC's recommendation
- No parliamentary process needed
- Weaker protection from pressure
How we got here
The appointment question has moved back and forth between the courts and Parliament.
- 1993Commission becomes a three-member body
- March 2023Anoop Baranwal: PM, LoP and CJI to select until Parliament legislates
- December 2023New Act replaces the CJI with a Cabinet Minister
- 12 March 2026Opposition gives notice to remove the CEC
- 6 April 2026Notices refused admission
- 23 September 2026Report of 14 recorded objections by two ECs
What is still unsettled
Petitions challenging the 2023 Act are pending before the Supreme Court. Reform proposals, including those of the Law Commission's 255th Report, suggest equal removal protection for all commissioners and a neutral appointment panel. How the Commission records and discloses internal disagreement is a newer question that the 2026 reports have raised.
You now know
- The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge under Article 324(5).
- Other Election Commissioners can be removed on the CEC's recommendation, so they are less protected.
- The 2023 Act gives the PM, a Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition the power to select commissioners.
- Opposition removal notices were refused admission in April 2026; challenges to the 2023 Act are pending.
Go deeper
In one line: The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, and the 2026 dispute tests whether that high bar also protects the Commission's neutrality.
Why it matters for UPSC
GS2 asks about the independence of constitutional bodies. This story combines three examinable pieces: the removal process under Article 324(5), the 2023 appointment law, and the internal functioning of a three-member Commission.
The core idea
Think of the removal process as a lock with two keys. Parliament must prove misbehaviour through an inquiry, and then both Houses must agree by a special majority. That protects the CEC from political pressure, but it also makes the CEC very hard to hold to account. In 2026, the Opposition's notices did not even pass the first gate: the presiding officers refused to admit them.
Meanwhile, the other two Election Commissioners have weaker protection, since they can be removed on the CEC's recommendation. Their recorded objections over the Special Intensive Revision of rolls raise a different question: how decisions are made inside the Commission.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members to give notice.
- 12 March 2026: removal notices submitted; 6 April 2026: rejected.
- 14 objections in 10 months by two ECs, reported on 23 September 2026.
Where to go next
- Article 324: The constitutional home of the Election Commission
- Anoop Baranwal judgment: How the Supreme Court tried to fix appointments in 2023
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: The procedure that also governs CEC removal
- Special Intensive Revision: The roll revision at the centre of the dispute
In one line: The CEC's removal protection is strong on paper, but appointment rules and internal decision-making decide how independent the Commission really is.
Appointments before and after 2023
Article 324(2) says the President appoints the CEC and ECs, subject to any law made by Parliament. For over 70 years no law existed, so the executive chose alone. In Anoop Baranwal judgment (March 2023), a Constitution Bench ruled that a panel of the PM, the Leader of Opposition and the CJI would recommend names until Parliament legislated. Parliament's 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister, giving the executive two of three votes.
The removal process in practice
Removal follows the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Speaker or Chairman first decides whether to admit a notice; if admitted, a three-member committee investigates. In 2026, notices signed by 130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha members listing seven charges were refused at admission. A fresh notice with nine charges was filed in the Rajya Sabha in April.
Why internal functioning matters
The Commission decides by majority where members disagree. The reported objections over the Special Intensive Revision suggest disagreements about including commissioners in decisions and about adding and deleting voters. Because such dissent is not routinely published, voters cannot judge how decisions were reached.
Reform ideas
- Equal removal protection for all commissioners.
- A neutral appointment panel, as the Law Commission's 255th Report proposed.
- Publishing dissent notes and reasons for large roll deletions.
Where to go next
- Article 324: The constitutional home of the Election Commission
- Anoop Baranwal judgment: How the Supreme Court tried to fix appointments in 2023
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: The procedure that also governs CEC removal
- Special Intensive Revision: The roll revision at the centre of the dispute
Article 324
The constitutional home of the Election Commission
In one line: Article 324 gives the Election Commission control over elections to Parliament, State legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President.
What it says
- Clause (1): superintendence, direction and control of elections is vested in the Election Commission.
- Clause (2): the Commission consists of the CEC and such number of ECs as the President fixes, appointed by the President, subject to any law of Parliament.
- Clause (5): the CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge; other ECs only on the CEC's recommendation.
How courts read it
The Supreme Court has described Article 324 as a reservoir of power to act where laws are silent, as long as the Commission does not contradict a law made by Parliament. This is why the Commission can issue the Model Code of Conduct, which has no statutory basis.
Why it matters now
Both the 2026 removal attempt and the challenge to the 2023 appointment law turn on how clauses (2) and (5) are applied.
Where to go next
- Anoop Baranwal judgment: How the Supreme Court tried to fix appointments in 2023
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: The procedure that also governs CEC removal
Anoop Baranwal judgment
How the Supreme Court tried to fix appointments in 2023
In one line: In March 2023, a Constitution Bench ruled that the CEC and ECs should be chosen by the PM, the Leader of Opposition and the CJI until Parliament made a law.
The case
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India asked whether leaving appointments entirely to the executive threatened free and fair elections. The Court held that independence of the Commission is essential to democracy and filled the legislative gap with a three-member panel.
What happened next
In December 2023, Parliament passed the CEC and Other ECs Act, which kept the PM and Leader of Opposition but replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister chosen by the PM. Petitions argue that this undoes the reasoning of the judgment without addressing its concern; the government argues that Parliament was entitled to legislate.
Exam angle
The case shows the Court filling a legislative vacuum and Parliament then legislating differently, a pattern also seen with judicial appointments.
Where to go next
- Article 324: The constitutional home of the Election Commission
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: The procedure that also governs CEC removal
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
The procedure that also governs CEC removal
In one line: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 sets out how charges against a Supreme Court or High Court judge are investigated, and the same process applies to removing a CEC.
The process
- A notice of motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
- The Speaker or Chairman may admit or refuse it (Section 3).
- If admitted, a three-member committee is formed: a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist.
- If the committee finds the charges proved, each House must pass the motion by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.
Why it is hard
The admission stage gives presiding officers a gatekeeping role, and the special majority in both Houses is difficult to reach. No judge of the Supreme Court has been removed under this process.
Where to go next
- Article 324: The constitutional home of the Election Commission
- Anoop Baranwal judgment: How the Supreme Court tried to fix appointments in 2023
Special Intensive Revision
The roll revision at the centre of the dispute
In one line: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a detailed exercise to verify and update electoral rolls, including removing ineligible names.
Legal basis
Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the Election Commission order a special revision of rolls, with reasons recorded.
Why it is contested
Revisions aim to remove duplicate, dead or ineligible voters, which strengthens roll integrity. But large-scale deletions risk excluding genuine voters, especially those without documents. Critics have questioned verification methods and transparency, while the Commission says revisions are routine and lawful.
The 2026 angle
The reported objections by two Election Commissioners related to decisions in the SIR, including additions and deletions of names, which is why the exercise sits at the heart of the 2026 dispute over the Commission's functioning.
Where to go next
- Article 324: The constitutional home of the Election Commission
- Anoop Baranwal judgment: How the Supreme Court tried to fix appointments in 2023
Special Intensive Revision: every story that connects to it (2)
Take the 25 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers