Critically analyse the asymmetry in removal procedures between the CEC and other Election Commissioners under Article 324. Should Parliament ensure parity?

Article 324 gives the Election Commission the superintendence, direction and control of elections [1]. Article 324(5) protects only the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in the way a Supreme Court judge is protected. Other Election Commissioners (ECs) can be removed on the CEC's recommendation [1][2]. This asymmetry weakens a multi-member body and should be corrected.

Nature of the asymmetry

• CEC: removed on the same grounds and by the same procedure as an SC judge. This needs a special majority in both Houses in the same session [2].
• ECs: removed by the President on the CEC's recommendation (second proviso, Art. 324(5)) [1][2].
• The 2023 CEC and ECs Act kept this arrangement. Changing it needs a constitutional amendment [2].

Arguments justifying the design

• Original design: Art. 324(2) treats ECs as optional, appointed "from time to time". The framers built the Commission around the CEC [1].
• A check on the executive: the government cannot remove an EC without the CEC's consent.
• Coherent leadership: the CEC stays the clear head of the Commission.

Arguments against

• Undermines functional parity: T.N. Seshan (1995) held that ECs are at par with the CEC. The 2023 Act gives them equal salary and an equal say in decisions, but not equal protection [2].
• Discourages dissent: an EC who outvotes the CEC can be removed on that same CEC's recommendation. This empties majority decision-making of meaning.
• One point of capture: the Commission's independence rests on one person. A partisan CEC could use the threat of removal against the other members.
• Expert view: the Goswami Committee (1990) sought safeguards on removal [2]. The Law Commission's 255th Report (2015) recommended amending Art. 324(5) to give ECs the same protection [3].
• Judicial deferral: in Anoop Baranwal (2023), the SC said it could not mandate parity and left the question to Parliament [2].

Should Parliament ensure parity? Yes, with safeguards

• Amend Art. 324(5) so that ECs can be removed only through the judge-like procedure [3].
• Protect the CEC's leadership through rules of business, not through the power to recommend removal.
• Pair parity with a neutral appointment panel: removal protection matters less if appointments look partisan [2].

The asymmetry made sense for a single-member Commission but not for today's three-member body. Parliament should give ECs the same removal protection, as the Law Commission advised. A Commission whose members can disagree without fear would better uphold free and fair elections, part of the Constitution's basic structure.