How Can the Chief Election Commissioner Be Removed? Article 324(5), Process & the 2026 Notices
The removal of Chief Election Commissioner is modelled on the removal of a Supreme Court judge — and in 76 years, no CEC has ever been removed. After the first-ever removal notices in March 2026, this is one polity topic you cannot afford to know only superficially.
Here's a question that looks easy until you actually try to answer it in a Mains paper: how can the Chief Election Commissioner be removed? Most aspirants write "like a Supreme Court judge" and stop. That line earns you a mark. It does not earn you a good score.
And this year, the topic has moved out of the textbook and into the headlines. In March 2026, for the first time in India's history, Opposition MPs submitted formal notices in Parliament seeking the removal of a sitting CEC. Those notices were rejected. A second notice followed in April. This week, a third attempt is being discussed. If you are preparing for UPSC 2027, the removal of Chief Election Commissioner is now a live GS2 issue — not a static fact.
At Legacy IAS Academy, we want you to understand this the way an examiner does: the constitutional text, the statutory machinery, the numbers, the asymmetry between the CEC and other Election Commissioners, and why the bar is set so high. Let's build it step by step.
The Constitutional Basis for Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner
Everything starts with Article 324(5). It says the CEC shall not be removed from office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The same clause adds a second shield: the CEC's conditions of service cannot be varied to his disadvantage after appointment.
That single sentence does something powerful. It borrows the entire judicial removal framework — Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — and applies it to the head of the Election Commission.
The 2023 Act Repeats the Protection
The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 restates this in Section 11(2). The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge. An Election Commissioner, however, can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC. The Act also fixes the tenure at six years or until the age of 65, whichever comes first.
The Only Two Grounds
There are exactly two grounds — nothing more:
- Proved misbehaviour — the Constitution does not define it, but it has been understood to cover wilful misconduct, corruption, lack of integrity and similar serious lapses — not mere errors of judgment or unpopular decisions.
- Incapacity — a physical or mental inability to discharge the duties of office.
Notice the word "proved". An allegation is not enough. The charge must be established through a formal inquiry before Parliament can even vote on it. That one word is the heart of the whole design.
Media reports call it "impeaching the CEC." Technically, the Constitution uses the word impeachment only for the President (Article 61). For judges and the CEC, the correct term is removal. Using the precise term in Mains signals conceptual clarity — examiners notice.
Step-by-Step: How the Chief Election Commissioner Is Removed
Because Article 324(5) borrows the judges' route, the process runs through the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Here is the full sequence — memorise it in this order:
- Notice of motion is introduced — in either House of Parliament. It must explicitly allege proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Minimum signatures required — at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha OR 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.
- Motion is admitted (or refused) — the Speaker or Chairman, after consulting as they see fit, may admit the motion or refuse to admit it. This is the first and most powerful filter.
- Inquiry / investigation — if admitted, a three-member committee is constituted: a Supreme Court judge (or the Chief Justice of India), a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee frames charges and examines the evidence.
- Parliament votes — if the committee finds the charges proved, its report goes to Parliament. If it finds them not proved, the matter ends there. Both Houses must then pass the motion separately, in the same session.
- Special majority needed — a majority of the total membership of that House AND a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting, in BOTH Houses.
- President issues removal order — once the address is presented and the constitutional requirements are met, the President orders the removal.
Count the veto points. The presiding officer can stop it. The inquiry committee can stop it. Either House can stop it. That is three separate gates, each with a different gatekeeper. Here's the thing — it is designed to be nearly impossible to pass for political reasons alone.
"When you write about the removal of the CEC, don't just list the steps. Explain why each step exists. The inquiry committee is there so that 'proved' actually means proved. The special majority is there so that no ruling coalition, however large, can remove an umpire it dislikes on its own."
— Legacy IAS Faculty
Why Is the Bar So High?
Think about what the Election Commission actually does. It decides when elections are held, supervises electoral rolls, enforces the Model Code of Conduct and adjudicates disputes between parties — including the party in power. An umpire who can be sacked by one of the players is not an umpire.
So the framers built two protections into the design:
- To protect the independence of the Election Commission — the CEC must be able to take unpopular decisions against any government without fear for his job.
- To prevent political misuse or arbitrary removal — a simple majority government cannot remove the CEC; cross-party consensus is effectively required.
That said, independence cuts both ways. A near-impossible removal bar also means that accountability rests heavily on transparency, judicial review of decisions and public scrutiny — rather than on the threat of removal. That tension is exactly what a good Mains answer should explore.
CEC vs Other Election Commissioners: The Asymmetry
This is the part most aspirants miss — and UPSC loves it. The protection under Article 324(5) is not equal for all members of the Commission.
| Feature | Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) | Other Election Commissioners / Regional Commissioners |
|---|---|---|
| Removal method | Removed like a Supreme Court Judge | Cannot be removed except on the recommendation of the CEC |
| Level of protection | Very high constitutional protection | Protected, but through a different route |
| Legal source | Article 324(5); Section 11(2), 2023 Act | Proviso to Article 324(5); Section 11(2), 2023 Act |
| Parliament's role | Special majority in both Houses | None — executive action on CEC's recommendation |
Why does this matter? Since the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, the Election Commission functions as a multi-member body in which decisions are taken by majority, and the CEC is essentially first among equals. Yet the ECs' tenure depends on the CEC's recommendation. Critics — including the Law Commission in its 255th Report (2015) — have argued that all Election Commissioners should enjoy the same removal protection as the CEC. It is a ready-made "way forward" point for your answers.
The 2026 Removal Notices: Theory Meets Practice
For decades, the removal of Chief Election Commissioner was a purely theoretical topic. 2026 changed that. Here is the timeline, stated neutrally — as it should be in your answers:
- March 2026: Opposition MPs submitted notices in both Houses seeking the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar — signed by 130 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs, comfortably above the 100 / 50 threshold. It was the first such notice ever submitted against a CEC. The allegations centred on partisan conduct, especially around the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
- 6 April 2026: Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan refused to admit the notices under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The presiding officers held that the allegations did not prima facie meet the constitutional threshold of misbehaviour.
- 24 April 2026: A fresh notice was submitted in the Rajya Sabha, signed by 73 MPs and listing nine charges relating to conduct after 15 March. Reports indicate it remains pending.
- September 2026: Following media reports of repeated formal objections by the two Election Commissioners to certain Commission decisions, Opposition parties have indicated plans for another removal notice.
Notice what the April rejection teaches you. The process stopped at Step 3. Collecting signatures is the easy part; getting past the presiding officer is the real filter. This mirrors the 2018 notice against CJI Dipak Misra, which the then Rajya Sabha Chairman also refused to admit. Even for judges, no removal motion has ever completed the full journey — Justice V. Ramaswami's motion failed in the Lok Sabha in 1993, and Justice Soumitra Sen resigned in 2011 before the Lok Sabha could vote.
Don't take sides on the political merits. Use the 2026 episode to show how the constitutional design works in practice: the presiding officer's gatekeeping power, the debate over whether that discretion is too broad, and the balance between independence and accountability of the Election Commission.
What UPSC Can Ask on the Removal of Chief Election Commissioner
Prelims Angle
- Article 324(5) is the key constitutional provision.
- The President issues the removal order after Parliament passes the motion.
- Signature threshold: 100 (Lok Sabha) or 50 (Rajya Sabha).
- Other ECs and Regional Commissioners are removable only on the CEC's recommendation.
- No Chief Election Commissioner has ever been removed in India.
Mains Angle
Expect questions framed around the independence of constitutional bodies: "Discuss the constitutional safeguards ensuring the independence of the Election Commission of India. Are they adequate?" A strong answer covers removal safeguards, the CEC–EC asymmetry, the 2023 Act's appointment mechanism (which the Supreme Court's 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment had prompted), and the 2026 notices as a contemporary example.
Let's be honest — polity feels "done" once you finish Laxmikanth. But topics like this reward aspirants who connect the static text to what is happening in Parliament this year. That's the gap between a 4/10 and a 7/10 answer.
Key Takeaways
- Anchor every answer in Article 324(5): the CEC is removed only in like manner and on like grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
- Remember the two grounds — proved misbehaviour or incapacity — and stress that "proved" requires an inquiry committee finding.
- Memorise the numbers: 100 LS / 50 RS signatures, and a special majority (total membership majority + two-thirds present and voting) in both Houses.
- Always contrast the CEC with other Election Commissioners, who can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation — and cite the Law Commission's call for parity.
- Use the 2026 notices — the first ever against a CEC, refused at the admission stage on 6 April 2026 — as your contemporary example, presented neutrally.
- One-line takeaway: the removal process is deliberately tough to preserve the independence and credibility of the Election Commission.
FAQs on Removal of Chief Election Commissioner
Q: Who removes the Chief Election Commissioner of India?
The President issues the removal order — but only after both Houses of Parliament pass the motion by a special majority in the same session. The President cannot remove the CEC on the government's advice alone.
Q: Can the government remove an Election Commissioner directly?
No. Under the proviso to Article 324(5) and Section 11(2) of the 2023 Act, an Election Commissioner can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC. Parliament has no role in removing ECs.
Q: Has any Chief Election Commissioner ever been removed?
No. The first-ever removal notices against a CEC were submitted in March 2026, but the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman refused to admit them on 6 April 2026.
Q: Is removal of the CEC called impeachment?
Popularly, yes — but constitutionally, "impeachment" applies only to the President under Article 61. For the CEC and judges, the correct term is "removal."
Q: Which law governs the procedure?
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, read with Article 124(4) and Article 324(5) of the Constitution. The 2023 Act on the CEC and ECs restates the removal protection.
Ready to begin? Legacy IAS offers both Classroom and Online batches across Bengaluru and pan-India.
