CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, ECI tells top court

The Election Commission of India, or ECI, is the authority responsible for administering elections and maintaining electoral-roll processes. In general constitutional usage, it is an independent commission rather than an ordinary government department. The Chief Election Commissioner, or CEC, leads the Commission, while Election Commissioners serve alongside the CEC as members of the same body.

The affidavit identifies Gyanesh Kumar as CEC and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as the two Election Commissioners. It presents them as acting together in a multi-member Commission. Important decisions are considered through the Commission, not simply issued by one officeholder.

This structure matters because the ECI says it has no room for unilateral decision-making. Decisions are sent through the Election Commissioners and then the CEC, recorded in official files, signed, and implemented by the Secretariat. When members disagree, Section 18 of the 2023 Act provides for a majority decision.

This protection means the CEC has security of tenure. Under the constitutional arrangement, removal is not left to the routine discretion of the government or an individual official. It requires the formal process and legally recognised grounds associated with removing a Supreme Court judge. Those grounds are generally proved misbehaviour or incapacity, and Parliament’s special removal procedure applies.

The affidavit uses this rule to reject any suggestion that the CEC can be easily restrained or displaced. It says a CEC cannot be removed except in the manner and on grounds identical to those for ousting a Supreme Court judge. The protection is therefore about both procedure and justification.

That safeguard is important because election administration can affect competing political interests. A difficult decision cannot, by itself, become a shortcut to removal. The rule does not make the CEC immune from accountability. It makes accountability formal, evidence-based and harder to use as immediate pressure.

The ECI says its three-member structure is designed to handle disagreement collectively. If the CEC and the two Election Commissioners hold different views, the Commission follows the rule of majority under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The stated workflow also limits unilateral action. Decisions are first sent to one Election Commissioner, then the other, and finally the CEC. Approved decisions are recorded in files and signed before the ECI Secretariat notifies and implements them. For urgent matters, electronic approval may be obtained and recorded later.

The affidavit also acknowledges a July 28, 2026 office order issued without the two Election Commissioners’ knowledge or consensus. They wrote separate letters to the Cabinet Secretary the next day, and the order was never implemented. The ECI therefore presents majority decision-making as the normal safeguard, while recognising limited exigencies.

The affidavit gives two different measures of electoral-roll controversy. In West Bengal, 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in tribunals against the inclusion of voters in the electoral rolls. In Goa, allegations concerned 97 voters who were initially left out during the special intensive revision process.

The ECI said West Bengal’s appeals were filed by officers of the Chief Electoral Officer in their capacity as authorities under the Representation of the People Act. It said the officers had authority under Supreme Court orders, and that the matters were not brought to the Commission. In Goa, house visits were conducted, and 88 of the 97 voters filled Form 6 for inclusion.

Together, these figures show the scale and variety of the issues described in the affidavit. West Bengal involved 16.10 lakh tribunal appeals. Goa involved a group of 97 initially excluded voters, with most already taking steps to seek inclusion. The affidavit records administrative responses in both cases.

An election authority must make decisions that can affect political parties, candidates and voters. If its head could be stopped or removed through a simple order, officials might fear displeasing powerful actors. That could weaken public confidence and make election administration appear politically controlled.

The affidavit’s central claim is that restraining the CEC’s functioning would be contrary to law. It also says removal requires the same manner and grounds used for removing a Supreme Court judge. Within the Commission, the ECI says decisions move through both Election Commissioners and the CEC, with majority voting available when opinions differ.

These protections could support continuity and independent administration. They do not mean every decision is beyond review. The petitions challenging the CEC’s functioning remain part of the legal dispute, while the ECI argues that media reports alone are not sufficient evidence. The practical balance is independence with formal accountability and court scrutiny.

Form 6 is the statutory form used by an applicant seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. A special intensive revision, or SIR, is an electoral-roll exercise in which the authorities verify and update voter information. These processes matter because they determine whether eligible applicants appear on the rolls and can participate in elections.

The ECI denied that Form 6 was amended in SIR orders dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026. It said applicants had to submit an additional declaration with Form 6 during the SIR exercise. That declaration asked for mapping details, but the ECI said it was not part of Form 6.

According to the affidavit, mapping could reduce the need for further verification documents and was meant to assist voters. The ECI’s position is that the statutory form itself remained unchanged. For voters, the distinction matters because an extra supporting declaration is different from changing the legal application form.

Constitutional systems protect election officials because elections require impartial administration. Decisions about voter rolls, procedures and disputes can affect political competition. If officials feared immediate removal or administrative punishment, they might favour the interests of those able to apply pressure. Independence helps decisions rest on law and evidence instead.

The affidavit illustrates this principle through the CEC’s removal protection and the Commission’s internal process. It says the CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge. It also says decisions pass through both Election Commissioners and the CEC, are signed in files, and are implemented by the Secretariat. Differences are resolved by majority under Section 18.

These arrangements do not eliminate disagreement or court challenges. Leaders of the Opposition and INDIA bloc parties, among others, have challenged the CEC’s functioning. The ECI responds that media reports are not enough evidence and that its procedures prevent unilateral decisions. Protection therefore supports independence, while legal review supplies accountability.