Security of tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner is a cornerstone of free and fair elections. Examine in light of recent litigation concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India.

Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only in the way a Supreme Court judge is removed: by a Presidential order that follows a special-majority motion passed by both Houses [2]. In October 2026 the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and both ECs filed a joint affidavit calling a bid to restrain the CEC "contrary to law" [1]. The case shows both what this safeguard does well and where it falls short.

Why tenure is a cornerstone

• Insulation from the executive: Removal needs a special majority [2], so no ruling party can remove a CEC it finds inconvenient in the middle of an election.
• Bar on removal by another route: A court order that stops a sitting CEC from working would act as removal without Parliament's vote. This is the ECI's central argument [1].
• Continuity: Poll schedules and roll revision need steady leadership. The ECI has confirmed that Form 6 (the voter-enrolment form) is unchanged [1].

Limits exposed by the litigation

• Tenure does not mean immunity from review: Under Mohinder Singh Gill (1978), courts can review ECI actions. They can strike down a decision even if they cannot restrain the person.
• Collegiality question: The affidavit says files move from one EC to the other EC and then to the CEC [1]. The law, however, says differences must be settled by majority [3]. The order in which files move does not show that the majority actually decides. T.N. Seshan (1995) held that the CEC is only first among equals.
• Unequal protection: The ECs can be removed on the CEC's recommendation [3], so an EC who disagrees with the CEC risks their own job.
• Weak check at appointment: The 2023 Act [2] gives the Selection Committee to the PM, the Leader of Opposition and a minister the PM nominates [3]. The government side therefore holds 2 of 3 votes, so the protection covers whoever the government chooses.

Way forward

• Give the ECs the same removal protection as the CEC, and add a neutral member such as the CJI to the selection panel, as the Law Commission's 255th Report recommended [4].
• Publish the ECI's business rules and record dissent, so it can show it works collectively.

Security of tenure keeps the CEC free from executive pressure, but on its own it cannot ensure free and fair elections. With balanced appointments, equal protection for the ECs and open majority decisions, it would better serve the constitutional promise of free and fair elections in Article 324.