Chief Election Commissioner – Appointment, Powers and Removal Process

Chief Election Commission Latest News

• The Supreme Court questioned the Centre on excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the panel appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) while hearing challenges to the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment) Act, 2023, raising concerns over the independence of the Election Commission.

Office of the Chief Election Commissioner

• The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) is the head of the Election Commission of India, a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution.
• The Commission is responsible for conducting free and fair elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President.

‹ ›

Appointment of CEC

• The CEC is appointed by the President of India.
• As per the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the appointment is made on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising: 
  • Prime Minister, 
  • Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and 
  • One Union Cabinet Minister.
• This aims to bring transparency and balance in the selection process.

Tenure

• The CEC holds office for a term of six years or until the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
• The conditions of service cannot be varied to their disadvantage after appointment, ensuring independence.

Powers and Functions

• The Election Commission, headed by the CEC, enjoys wide-ranging powers under Article 324.
• These include:
  • Superintendence, direction, and control of elections. 
  • Preparation and revision of electoral rolls. 
  • Conduct of free and fair elections. 
  • Monitoring election expenditure and enforcing the Model Code of Conduct. 
• The Commission also has plenary powers to act in areas where laws are silent, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

Removal Process

• The removal of the CEC is similar to that of a Supreme Court judge.
• Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The process requires:
  • A motion passed in both Houses of Parliament. 
  • Special majority (majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting). 
• This high threshold ensures institutional independence and protects the office from arbitrary removal.

News Summary

• Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla rejected notices submitted by Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. 
• The presiding officers held that the Opposition failed to provide sufficient proof and that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of “misbehaviour,” which is a constitutional requirement for removal. 
• The notices were signed by 63 Rajya Sabha members and 130 Lok Sabha members and included seven charges against the CEC. These charges were examined in detail and subsequently rejected. 
• The presiding officers stated that the allegations either lacked evidence, related to matters already adjudicated, or were currently under judicial consideration. 
• They emphasised that such issues did not meet the “high constitutional bar” required to initiate removal proceedings under Articles 324(5) and 124(4). 

Allegations Made Against the CEC

• Several specific allegations were addressed. Claims regarding the CEC’s appointment being “tainted” were dismissed, as the pendency of a legal challenge does not constitute misbehaviour. 
• Similarly, allegations of bias or differential treatment between the government and the opposition lacked demonstrable evidence. 
• The refusal to share electoral data or provide machine-readable electoral rolls was found to be consistent with legal provisions and Supreme Court directions, including considerations of privacy under the Puttaswamy judgment. 
• Issues related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were also examined. 

Basis of Rejection of the Allegations

• The presiding officers reiterated that the Election Commission has plenary powers under Article 324 and that the Supreme Court has affirmed its competence in such matters. 
• Allegations of contempt of court and lack of institutional independence were rejected as either falling under judicial jurisdiction or being vague and unsupported by evidence. 
• Overall, the decision reinforced the constitutional safeguards surrounding the office of the CEC and highlighted the stringent standards required for initiating removal proceedings.

Source: TH