"Election Commission and Supreme Court Conduct Questioned Over Electoral Roll Revision"
Article 324(5)
Constitutional provision protecting the CEC from removal except through a Supreme Court judge-equivalent process.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Statute setting the procedural threshold for removal of Supreme Court judges and, by extension, the CEC.
India's Election Commission of India (ECI) draws its authority from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests it with superintendence, direction, and control over elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Since 1989, the ECI has functioned as a three-member body comprising a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners (ECs), designed to decide matters collegially by majority. To protect this body from executive pressure, the Constitution built in a critical safeguard: Article 324(5) provides that the CEC shall not be removed except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
Removing a Supreme Court judge requires a motion supported by a majority of the total membership of each House of Parliament and not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. The detailed inquiry procedure is laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Constitution does not itself define 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'; that specificity comes only through this statute. Crucially, this high bar applies only to the CEC. The other two ECs enjoy no such constitutional shield. They can be removed by the President, but only on the CEC's own recommendation. This leaves them structurally weaker within a body designed to work as equals.
For decades, the CEC and ECs were appointed solely on the advice of the Union government. In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court directed that, until Parliament legislated otherwise, a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India would recommend appointments. Parliament then enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, replacing the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This gives the executive a built-in two-to-one majority in choosing its own election overseer, a change now under constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.
The asymmetry of protection within the ECI is a foundational design tension. The CEC's security of tenure is equated with that of the judiciary, making involuntary removal extraordinarily difficult. The two ECs, by contrast, are removable by the President on the CEC's recommendation alone. This structural imbalance matters because the ECI is meant to function as a collegial body. If the two ECs are vulnerable to removal through a process the CEC can initiate, their independence within the Commission is compromised, even though they are formally co-equal decision-makers.
The 2023 Act governs both entry and exit of Election Commissioners. Section 11 of the Act allows a Commissioner to resign voluntarily by writing to the President. Involuntary removal follows the much higher constitutional bar: a removal petition must be admitted by the presiding officers of both Houses, a committee must inquire into the charges, and both Houses must pass the motion with the required majority. …
Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
Consider the following statements:
1.Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha.
2.It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate the election disputes.
3.According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to the Election Commission of India, consider the following statements:
1.The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only through a process similar to the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge.
2.The other Election Commissioners can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
3.All three Election Commissioners enjoy identical constitutional protection against removal.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to the appointment of Election Commissioners, consider the following statements:
1.In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court prescribed a selection panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India, pending a law by Parliament.
2.The law subsequently enacted by Parliament in 2023 retained the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection committee.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Match List-I with List-II regarding the Election Commission of India and select the correct answer using the code given below.
List-I
1.ECI's collegial composition
2.CEC's removal
3.Other EC's removal
4.Current EC selection committee
List-II
A.Three-member body since 1989
B.Same process as a Supreme Court judge's impeachment
C.By the President, on the CEC's recommendation
D.PM, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition
Consider the following statements:
1.The Chief Election Commissioner has the constitutional authority to adjudicate disputes relating to the validity of an election.
2.The Election Commission of India has the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections under Article 324.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The acronym 'SIR', used in the context of the recent controversy over revision of electoral rolls, stands for:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account