Why Has No Chief Election Commissioner Ever Been Impeached In India & What Does It Actually Take To Remove CEC?

Gyanesh Kumar row: According to Article 324(5) of the Constitution, a CEC can only be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court Judge

A Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) has never been impeached in India because the constitutional bar is set exceptionally high, deliberately designed to protect the independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI) from political or executive interference.

While controversies surrounding past CECs like T.N. Seshan and current political friction involving the current CEC, Gyanesh Kumar, have led to extreme political heat and unprecedented formal removal motions by opposition groups, the rigorous legal hurdles have ensured that no removal has ever crossed the finish line.

Furthermore, from a strict legal standpoint, the term “impeachment" is technically reserved by the Constitution of India exclusively for the President of India (under Article 61); for a CEC, the process is formally termed removal.

WHAT IT ACTUALLY TAKES TO REMOVE A CEC

According to Article 324(5) of the Constitution, a CEC can only be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court Judge. The statutory process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and breaks down into the following stringent steps:

1. Valid Grounds Only

A CEC cannot be removed due to unpopular policy decisions or political disagreements.

The Constitution restricts the grounds strictly to two specific charges:

Proved misbehaviour

Incapacity

2. Initiation in Parliament

The process must begin with a formal motion signed by a significant number of Members of Parliament (MPs):

Lok Sabha: Requires at least 100 MPs to sign the notice.

Rajya Sabha: Requires at least 50 MPs to sign the notice.

The motion must be admitted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, who has the discretion to accept or reject it.

3. Independent Judicial Inquiry

Once admitted, the charges are not voted on immediately. A three-member judicial committee is set up to investigate the allegations.

The committee consists of:

A Supreme Court Judge

A High Court Chief Justice

An eminent jurist

This committee conducts a formal investigation and submits a report finding the CEC guilty or not guilty of the specified charges. If the committee finds no proof of misbehaviour or incapacity, the process drops entirely.

4. The “Special Majority" Voting Hurdle

If the committee finds the CEC guilty, the motion goes to a vote in both Houses of Parliament. To pass, it requires a Special Majority in each house separately:

Absolute Majority: Support from more than 50% of the total membership of the House.

Two-Thirds Majority: Support from at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.

5. Presidential Order

Only if both Houses pass the motion with a special majority in the same session will the resolution be sent to the President of India, who then issues the official removal order.

CEC VS. OTHER ELECTION COMMISSIONERS

It is important to note that this massive constitutional shield only applies to the Chief Election Commissioner. Under Article 324(5), the other two Election Commissioners (ECs) in the multi-member body can be removed much more easily by the President simply upon the recommendation of the CEC. This distinct lack of parallel protection for ECs remains a major point of debate for structural electoral reforms in India.

SECTION 16 PROTECTION

Section 16 protection refers to the legal immunity granted to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) under Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

This provision protects serving or former election commissioners from civil or criminal court proceedings for any official actions taken in good faith.

The statute explicitly states that “no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings" against a person who is or was a CEC or EC for any act, thing, or word done or spoken in the course of discharging their official duties. The protection is significant because it extends to the commissioners even after they leave office.

It is designed to cover official electoral tasks—such as voter roll preparation, constituency boundaries, or election scheduling—shielding commissioners from frivolous or politically motivated lawsuits.

The Ongoing Controversy & Current Debate

This legal shield has become a focal point of immense public and political debate:

While proponents argue that this immunity is essential to prevent political harassment and ensure the independent functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), critics and opposition groups argue that it creates an unprecedented lack of accountability. Critics highlight that even Supreme Court judges do not enjoy this specific level of statutory immunity from the filing of proceedings. Legal experts and former officials have noted that the protection is not absolute. It does not protect against malafide (bad faith) actions or conduct that occurs entirely outside the scope of their official duties. Furthermore, the text of the law does not explicitly bar police investigations or arrests—it strictly bars courts from entertaining or continuing legal proceedings.

The constitutionality of Section 16 is actively being examined. Legal challenges brought before the Supreme Court of India argue that the provision undermines institutional transparency and user voting rights, particularly amid disputes over internal disagreements within the multi-member commission.