What does the law say about CEC’s removal?

1. At a Glance

• The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) can be removed only "in like manner and on like grounds" as a Supreme Court judge. This means an order of the President after a motion passed by both Houses in the same session, by a special majority: a majority of the House's total membership and at least two-thirds of members present and voting [1][2].
• Election Commissioners (ECs) have weaker protection. They can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC [2][3].
• The 2023 Act kept this removal scheme but changed how the CEC and ECs are appointed [1][2].
• For UPSC, this ties together the independence of constitutional bodies, Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal judgment (2023), and the executive–judiciary tension in appointments.

2. Why in the News

• On 23 September 2026, Opposition parties sought the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar [5].
• This followed an Indian Express exposé. It claimed that two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, formally recorded objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months [5].
• Youth Congress workers protested in New Delhi demanding the CEC's resignation [5].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1950 – Constitution: Article 324 gives the ECI "superintendence, direction and control" of elections. Under Art. 324(2), the President appoints the CEC and ECs, subject to any law made by Parliament [5].
• For several decades there was no parliamentary law on the appointment procedure. In practice, the executive made the appointments [5].
• 1991 Act: governed the conditions of service of the CEC and ECs. It was later repealed by the 2023 Act [1].
• January 2015: Anoop Baranwal filed a petition challenging appointments made by the executive alone [5].
• March 2023: a five-judge Constitution Bench delivered Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, addressing how to protect ECI independence in appointments [5]. Its interim panel was the PM, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) and the Chief Justice of India, to operate until Parliament made a law [3].
• 10 August 2023: the CEC & Other ECs Bill, 2023 was introduced in Rajya Sabha [1].
• December 2023: Parliament passed the Bill, with Rajya Sabha debating it in Session 262 [4]. It became the 2023 Act [6][7].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The CEC's removal protection is constitutionally entrenched through the Art. 324 proviso. The 2023 Act restates it [2][3].
• The asymmetry between CEC and ECs is significant. Because an EC's removal depends on the CEC's recommendation, ECs may hesitate to dissent. The recorded objections by two ECs make this relevant now [2][5].
• Anoop Baranwal was a stop-gap arrangement. Parliament then used its Art. 324(2) power and removed the CJI from the selection panel [1][3][5].

Ethical / Governance

• The special-majority requirement protects against arbitrary executive action. It also makes removal politically very hard, because no removal succeeds without cross-party consensus [2].
• When the executive dominates appointments (2 of 3 panel members are from the government side), the difficulty of removal can look more like protection for the incumbent than protection for independence [1][3].
• Dissent notes within a multi-member body (the 14+ objections) test internal collegiality and transparency [5].

Political / Federal–democratic

• The ECI conducts elections to Parliament, state legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President. Its credibility therefore underpins free and fair elections, which are part of the basic structure [5].
• A removal motion needs Opposition numbers that rarely exist. In practice such motions mostly signal protest [2][5].

Administrative

• Removal works like judicial impeachment: a motion, an inquiry into "proved misbehaviour or incapacity", then passage in both Houses and a Presidential order [2][3].
• Salary and service conditions set by the Act affect the CEC's protocol standing relative to the bureaucracy. PRS reports that the Bill equated them with the Cabinet Secretary [3].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 23 September 2026: Opposition parties demanded CEC Gyanesh Kumar's removal [5].
• September 2026: the Indian Express exposé reported that ECs Sandhu and Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months [5].
• Late September 2026: Youth Congress protests in New Delhi demanded the CEC's resignation [5].
• 27 September 2026: The Hindu published an explainer on the legal position (Page 16, Chennai edition) [5].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Art. 324 gives the ECI "superintendence, direction and control" of elections [5].
• Under Art. 324(2), the President appoints the CEC and ECs, subject to law made by Parliament [5].
• The CEC is removed like a Supreme Court judge: a Presidential order after a motion in both Houses [2].
• The removal motion must pass both Houses in the same session [2].
• Majority required: majority of total membership plus two-thirds of those present and voting [2].
• ECs can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation [2].
• Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India was decided in March 2023 by a five-judge Constitution Bench [5].
• The Baranwal interim panel was the PM, LoP and CJI [3].
• The Selection Committee under the 2023 Act is the PM, LoP (or largest Opposition party leader) and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM [1][3].
• The Search Committee is headed by the Union Law Minister [2].
• The 2023 Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on 10 August 2023 [1].
• The 2023 Act repealed the 1991 Act [1].
• Tenure: 6 years or 65 years of age. Reappointment is not allowed [2].

8. Why Safe Removal Is Not Enough Without Fair Appointment

• The government side controls who gets the protection in the first place
• The Selection Committee has the PM, a Cabinet Minister chosen by the PM, and the LoP. The government has 2 of the 3 votes [1][3].
• In Anoop Baranwal, the Supreme Court said the ECI "stands on a higher pedestal in the constitutional scheme" and should be kept away from Executive control. The panel design goes against this [3].

• Security of tenure (the rule that you cannot be removed easily) only protects a person who is already in the post. If the government picks that person, the same protection can shield a friendly CEC instead of an independent one.

• The Opposition's single seat can go empty at the most important time

• When Lok Sabha is dissolved before a general election, there is no Leader of Opposition [3].
• An appointment made then would come from a committee of ruling-side members only [3].

• That is exactly the period when the ECI runs the national election.

• Only senior civil servants can be chosen

• The law limits candidates to serving or former Secretaries to the Government of India [3].
• Yet the ECI also does quasi-judicial work (work that is like a court's: hearing both sides and deciding a dispute). For example, it advises on disqualifying legislators and decides disputes over party symbols and registration [3].

• These officers spent their whole careers reporting to the same executive whose party contests the elections.

• Pay was linked to a post the government controls

• The 1991 Act gave the CEC and ECs the same pay as Supreme Court judges. That pay is fixed by Parliament under Article 125 [3].
• The Bill as introduced changed this to the pay of the Cabinet Secretary. The government sets that pay through the Central Pay Commission [3].
• PRS warned that this gives the Executive more influence over the Commission. Check the final Act text before quoting this in an answer [6].

9. Why the Two Election Commissioners Are Less Safe Than Their Chief

• The person an EC disagrees with has the power to start that EC's removal
• An EC can be removed on the CEC's recommendation alone. No parliamentary motion and no inquiry are needed [2].
• Two ECs, Sandhu and Joshi, reportedly recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months [5]. Each time, they were disagreeing with the officer who controls the first step towards removing them.

• So the law makes disagreeing risky for ECs. That weakens the purpose of having a three-member Commission: members checking one another.

• The Supreme Court saw this gap but left it to Parliament

• In Baranwal, the Court said it could not order equal removal protection, because the Constitution itself provides different removal processes for the CEC and ECs [3].
• It said giving ECs the same protection "is a matter for Parliament to consider" [3].
• Parliament passed the 2023 Act on 12 December (Rajya Sabha) and 21 December (Lok Sabha) 2023 [1]. It kept the unequal protection [2].

10. Is a Removal Motion the Right Answer to the Dissent Notes?

• The strongest case for removal
• Two of the three members repeatedly put their disagreement on record [5].

• The Opposition's argument: if the Chief keeps overruling his colleagues, the Commission works as one man's office, not as a collective body. That hurts trust in free and fair elections [5].

• Why the motion is still a weak tool

• Removal needs "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" [2][3]. Disagreement inside a multi-member body is not misbehaviour by itself. In fact, recorded dissent shows the members are free to disagree.
• The motion needs a special majority in both Houses in the same session [2]. The Opposition does not have those numbers. So the motion works mainly as a political signal [5].

• If this motion succeeded on a partisan vote, any future majority could use the same route against a CEC it dislikes.

• What the protest gets right

• The real problem is not this one CEC. The system has no public record of why decisions were taken over the objections of the other members.
• The ECs' weaker protection also makes their dissent costly (see the section above) [2].
• Fixing these rules would help more than removing one officer.

11. What Past Committees and Other Democracies Suggest

• Parliament should give ECs the same removal protection as the CEC
• The Supreme Court directly handed this choice to Parliament in 2023 [3].

• With equal protection, dissent notes like the 14 recorded objections would carry no personal risk [5].

• The Law Ministry should create an independent ECI secretariat

• The Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), the Law Commission (2015, 255th Report) and the Supreme Court (2023) all asked for one. It would work like the secretariats of Parliament and the Judiciary [3].

• The 2023 Act does not do this [3]. So the ECI still depends on the government for staff and budget.

• Other democracies give their selection panels non-government members

• South Africa: the panel includes the President of the Constitutional Court and members of human rights and gender equality bodies [3].
• UK: a Speaker's Committee takes part, and Parliament must approve [3].
• Canada: the appointment is made by a resolution of the House of Commons [3].

• In each case, the government cannot decide the appointment on its own votes, unlike India's 2-of-3 panel.

• Fix the gap when there is no LoP and widen who can be chosen

• When Lok Sabha is dissolved and the LoP seat is empty, a named substitute (for example, the leader of the largest Opposition party) could keep the panel balanced [3].
• South Africa includes judges among its commissioners. India's pool is limited to Secretaries [3].

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Two of three ECs recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months, showing strong internal dissent within the ECI [5]
• Data: 2 of 3 Selection Committee members come from the government side [1][3]
• Report/Committee: Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990); Law Commission 255th Report (2015). Both recommended an independent ECI secretariat [3]
• Law/Case: Art. 324(5) proviso (CEC removed like an SC judge); Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): ECI independence, and the Court's view that EC removal parity is for Parliament to decide [3]; CEC & Other ECs Act, 2023 [6]
• Comparison: South Africa: Constitutional Court President sits on the selection panel. UK: Speaker's Committee plus parliamentary approval. Canada: House of Commons resolution [3]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Appointment to various constitutional posts, and the powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies. Also Indian Constitution (significant provisions, basic structure) and separation of powers.
• GS-IV: Probity in governance and the independence of institutions.
• Question stems: 1. "The security of tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner is necessary but not sufficient for the independence of the Election Commission." Critically examine in light of the 2023 Act. (15 marks) 2. Discuss the significance of Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) and evaluate Parliament's legislative response to it. (10 marks) 3. The differential removal protection for the CEC and Election Commissioners weakens the ECI's collegial character. Comment. (10 marks)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Removal of SC/HC judges (Art. 124(4), Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968): the CEC's removal copies this procedure.
• Anoop Baranwal judgment, full text: the basis of the appointment debate.
• Appointment of the CBI Director and Lokpal: comparable selection-committee models.
• Model Code of Conduct: the ECI's main enforcement tool, and a frequent flashpoint for questions about its neutrality.
• Removal of the CAG and UPSC members (Arts. 148, 317): compare how much protection each constitutional body gets.
• Election reforms (Dinesh Goswami, Indrajit Gupta, Law Commission 255th Report): earlier proposals for a collegium to appoint the CEC.
• Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls: a recent source of controversy around the ECI.
• Basic structure: free and fair elections (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain): the constitutional value that ECI independence protects.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• ECs are not protected like SC judges. Only the CEC is. ECs are removable on the CEC's recommendation [2].
• The CJI is not on the 2023 Act's panel. The CJI was only on the Baranwal interim panel [1][3].
• The motion needs a special majority, not a simple majority, in both Houses in the same session [2].
• The Bill started in Rajya Sabha, not Lok Sabha, on 10 August 2023 [1].
• The President issues the removal order. The motion itself does not remove the CEC, and neither does the Supreme Court [2].