150+
mock exams
17,986
tests completed
2,30,795
questions answered
The Opposition INDIA bloc submitted a fresh notice signed by 73 Rajya Sabha MPs to remove Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar (Note: Gyanesh Kumar is an Election Commissioner, not the CEC).. The notice details nine charges of 'proven misbehaviour', alleging partisan enforcement of the , administrative bias, and conduct unbecoming of a constitutional functionary since mid-March.
This development centers on the constitutional safeguards for the independence of the Election Commission of India. The Constitution of India under Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the ECI. To ensure the CEC can function independently without executive pressure, Article 324(5) provides security of tenure, stating the CEC can only be removed in the 'like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court'. This links the process to Article 124(4), which requires an address by both Houses of Parliament, supported by a special majority (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting), presented to the President in the same session. The grounds for removal are strictly limited to 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'. UPSC Prelims often tests the nuances of removal procedures for constitutional bodies, distinguishing between the CEC (removed like a SC judge) and other Election Commissioners (removed only on the recommendation of the CEC).
The allegations against the CEC highlight the vital role of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) in ensuring free and fair elections. The Opposition's core charge is 'partisan asymmetry' in MCC enforcement, alleging swift action on ruling party complaints while ignoring similar violations by the Prime Minister. The MCC is not statutory but a consensus document among political parties, enforced by the ECI using its plenary powers under Article 324. Its effectiveness relies entirely on the ECI's neutral and equitable application. Charges of bias, 'administrative lapses evidencing institutional proximity to the ruling party', and 'mass disenfranchisement' fundamentally undermine public trust in the electoral process. For Mains, this illustrates the challenges regulatory bodies face in maintaining strict non-partisanship and the critical need for institutional integrity to uphold democratic principles.
A parliamentary motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is not the legal procedure for removing an Election Commissioner; it is only for the CEC, SC/HC judges, CAG, and members of certain other bodies. A notice for a removal motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members and submitted to the respective presiding officer. Crucially, the Speaker or Chairman has the discretionary power to admit or reject the motion. In this case, previous notices against the CEC were rejected by both the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman, citing a lack of 'prima facie' evidence constituting misbehaviour. If admitted, the presiding officer forms a three-member committee (comprising a SC judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist) to investigate the charges. This multi-layered process, while designed to prevent frivolous accusations against constitutional functionaries, also raises questions about accountability when the presiding officers themselves reject the initiation of an inquiry.