Motion in both Houses, 2/3rds majority: Process to remove CEC

Why in the News

The Opposition will soon move a motion in both Houses of Parliament to remove the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha has demanded the CEC’s resignation. The demand follows the disclosure of criticisms that the two Election Commissioners raised internally against the decisions and processes of the Election Commission of India (ECI) over recent months. Article 324(5) of the Constitution protects the CEC with the same removal safeguard that applies to a judge of the Supreme Court. A removal therefore runs through the route the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 lays down. The tension is that a safeguard built to shield the Commission from political pressure also places the remedy beyond the reach of any group without a two thirds majority.

What does Article 324(5) provide on removing the CEC?

1. The standard for the CEC: Article 324(5) states that the CEC can be removed from office only “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court”.
2. The same wording in statute: The same framing appears in Section 11(2) of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
3. A weaker rule for the others: The same Article states that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.
4. Why the bar is high: The bar for removing the CEC is set high deliberately, with the view of shielding the ECI from political pressures.

Who appoints the Election Commission, and on what terms?

1. The mandate: The ECI is entrusted with conducting free and fair elections in the country. Article 324 of the Constitution and the 2023 Act lay down the provisions on appointment, tenure and removal.
2. Composition and internal standing: The ECI has three Election Commissioners. The CEC is first among equals rather than the seniormost, and decisions are to be taken unanimously by all three as far as possible.
3. The appointment route: The President appoints the CEC and the Election Commissioners on the recommendation of a three member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and one member of the Union Cabinet.
4. Eligibility: Appointees should have previously held secretary level positions in the Government and be “persons of integrity, who have knowledge of and experience in management and conduct of elections”, under the 2023 Act.
5. Tenure and status: Appointments run for six years or until the age of 65, whichever comes first. The CEC enjoys the same services and monetary benefits extended to justices of the Supreme Court.

What are the grounds for removal?

1. The constitutional ground: Article 124(4), which carries the process for removing a Supreme Court judge, allows removal only “on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity”.
2. What misbehaviour covers: Misbehaviour can comprise corrupt practices or abuse of office. Courts have interpreted it to include actions incompatible with the office of the CEC and a failure to discharge official duties.
3. What incapacity covers: Incapacity refers to a situation where the officer is unable to perform the duties of the office.

What procedure does the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 set?

1. The notice of motion: Members of both Houses must bring a notice of motion explicitly alleging misbehaviour or incapacity.
2. The signature threshold: To be admitted, the motion needs the signatures of at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha.
3. Admission is a decision: The presiding officers can consult people and materials before refusing or admitting the motion.
4. The inquiry stage: If the motion is admitted, an inquiry examines the validity of the charges. This involves forming a committee to investigate evidence of misbehaviour or incapacity.
5. The vote: The motion must then be passed by a two thirds majority of those present and voting in both Houses.
6. The final step: Once it is passed, the President orders the removal. There is no discretion at that stage, since the President acts on the advice of Parliament in this context.
7. Application to the CEC: This process, written for a judge, is what extends to the removal of the CEC.

Why did the earlier attempt fail?

1. No CEC has been removed: No CEC has been impeached.
2. Rejection at admission: The Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker rejected the impeachment motions submitted in both Houses in April. Neither presiding officer assigned any reason, and Opposition leaders criticised the move.
3. The numbers behind the motions: The Trinamool Congress led the Opposition in submitting the motions on 12 March, with 130 MPs signing the Lok Sabha motion and 63 the Rajya Sabha one.
4. The grounds alleged: Both motions referred to the ECI’s ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. They alleged “partisan and discriminatory conduct” by the CEC and “obstruction of investigation into electoral fraud and SIR”.
5. The internal criticism on the same subject: The two Election Commissioners also raised concerns about processes linked to the SIR.

Challenges to the process for removing the CEC

1. The arithmetic makes the route unusable for an Opposition: A two thirds majority of those present and voting in both Houses can only be reached with the support of the party holding the majority, so the remedy is available only when the government agrees to it. Eg. No judge of the Supreme Court has been removed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 since it was enacted.
   The Fix: Provide graded consequences short of removal, such as a mandatory inquiry report laid before both Houses whatever the vote.
2. Admission rests on an unreasoned discretion: A presiding officer decides whether the motion is admitted at all and need not record reasons, so the process can end before any inquiry tests the charge. Eg. A removal motion against a Chief Justice of India was rejected at the admission stage by the Rajya Sabha Chairman in 2018.
   The Fix: Require written reasons for refusing admission, so the decision becomes reviewable.
3. Protection inside the Commission is asymmetric: Only the CEC holds the Supreme Court judge standard, so a dissenting Election Commissioner has less security of tenure than the officeholder whose decisions are being contested. Eg. The Law Commission’s 255th Report on electoral reforms recommended extending the CEC’s removal protection to all Election Commissioners.
   The Fix: Amend Article 324(5) to extend the same removal standard to every Election Commissioner.
4. Appointment design decides the independence a removal bar cannot: A selection committee with a government majority chooses the officeholder, so independence is settled at appointment rather than at removal. Eg. The Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) directed that the selection panel include the Chief Justice of India until Parliament legislated, and the 2023 Act omitted the Chief Justice.
   The Fix: Restore a member outside the executive to the selection committee, such as the Chief Justice of India or a nominee of the Chief Justice.

Conclusion

The safeguard and the obstacle are the same provision. A removal standard borrowed from the judiciary keeps the office out of reach of an ordinary majority, and it equally keeps the office out of reach of an Opposition that cannot assemble a supermajority. The unresolved question sits earlier in the chain, at admission, where a presiding officer can end the process without recording a reason and without any inquiry testing the charge. What follows next is whether the fresh notices are admitted in either House, and whether the reasons for that decision are placed on record this time.

Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision

1. What it is: A comprehensive, time bound house to house verification of the electoral roll, using fresh enumeration forms for every voter, door to door verification by Booth Level Officers, document verification of citizenship, deletion of ineligible entries and inclusion of omitted voters.
2. How it differs from the routine revision: Summary Revision is the routine exercise before an election, updating additions, deletions and corrections against a qualifying date. An intensive revision re enumerates the whole roll instead.
3. When it is triggered: Only where rolls have stayed largely unchanged for years or large scale irregularities are suspected. Intensive revisions have been carried out 13 times in India’s history.
4. The current exercise: A nationwide revision was launched from 4 November 2025, the first in 21 years, covering nine States and three Union Territories and about 51 crore voter records, mandated under Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2019] Consider the following statements: 1. The- motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what Constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Answer: (c)”