Oppn 'impeaches' CEC in 'mock Parliament', but what will it take to remove him for real

At a mock Parliament held at Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's residence, the opposition unanimously passed a resolution seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's removal. Former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar presided, while MPs and activists supported the demand. The event was political, not a formal parliamentary proceeding.

Kharge accused Kumar of centralising control over electoral rolls and acting at the direction of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah. He also alleged that the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, was started to remove voters opposed to the Bharatiya Janata Party. The opposition said the move was needed to protect the Election Commission's impartiality.

Rahul Gandhi called the mock Parliament a political weapon targeting Kumar, Modi and Shah. The voice vote showed support within that gathering, but the resolution cannot itself remove the CEC. A real removal requires notices, an inquiry, approval by both Houses and a formal presidential order.

The Chief Election Commissioner is the head of India's Election Commission, a constitutional institution that oversees the country's electoral process. The office matters because elections depend on an authority that manages electoral rolls and conducts its work impartially. The article particularly focuses on the Commission's role in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The article does not provide a full list of the CEC's functions. It does show the office's constitutional protection: Article 324(5) says the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Kharge said this safeguard protects the institution's dignity and public confidence.

The dispute over Gyanesh Kumar centres on allegations that electoral-roll control was centralised and that SIR was politically directed. Kumar's removal has not occurred. Any such action would require the demanding parliamentary process for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, rather than a political resolution alone.

The process has two different numerical thresholds. To begin a removal motion, at least 100 MPs must sign a notice in the Lok Sabha, or at least 50 MPs must sign it in the Rajya Sabha. These figures concern introduction of the motion, not its final passage.

If an inquiry establishes the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity, each House must approve the motion. It needs a majority of that House's total membership and a majority of at least two-thirds of members present and voting. Both conditions apply in both Houses, during the same session.

The article gives an earlier example of the notice stage: 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members signed an opposition notice. Even though those numbers exceeded the filing thresholds, the presiding officers rejected it. The mock Parliament's voice vote did not meet any of the real parliamentary requirements.

The process starts with a notice of motion in either House, alleging proved misbehaviour or incapacity. At least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign it. The presiding officer then considers the available material and information and may admit or refuse the motion.

If admitted, a committee investigates the charges. When the committee establishes them, both Houses must pass the motion in the same session. Each House requires a majority of its total membership and at least a two-thirds majority among members present and voting. These requirements make a removal substantially harder than an ordinary vote.

After both Houses approve the motion, Parliament makes an address to the President. The President then issues the order removing the CEC. The article describes the President's role at that point as constitutional and formal, because the required parliamentary decision has already been completed.

If both Houses approved the removal address under the constitutional requirements, Gyanesh Kumar would be removed as Chief Election Commissioner. The result would follow a formal presidential order, not simply the opposition's political resolution or a voice vote at the mock Parliament.

The mechanism is set out through Articles 324(5) and 124(4). The CEC must face the same process as a Supreme Court judge. That means a notice, possible admission by the presiding officer, an inquiry into alleged misbehaviour or incapacity, and approval by both Houses. Each House must meet the required voting thresholds.

The President acts after Parliament passes the address. The article calls this role constitutional and formal at that stage. In the current situation described, the opposition has only passed a resolution in a mock Parliament, while an earlier real notice was rejected by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairperson.

On April 7, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairperson CP Radhakrishnan rejected an opposition notice seeking the CEC's removal. The notice had been signed by 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members. Those figures were above the constitutional thresholds for submitting a notice.

The article does not give a specific explanation for the rejection. It does state that the presiding officer of the concerned House may admit or refuse a motion after considering the material and information available. If admitted, the allegations would proceed to an inquiry committee. The article does not say what material or information led to this decision.

The notice alleged partisanship and arbitrariness in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Its rejection meant the formal removal process did not advance through that notice. The later mock Parliament resolution therefore remained a political demonstration rather than a legal removal motion.

The Constitution deliberately makes removing a CEC difficult because the office belongs to a constitutional institution expected to function impartially. The article connects this protection with preserving the Election Commission's dignity and the common person's trust. A government or temporary parliamentary majority cannot remove the CEC through an ordinary political disagreement.

Article 324(5) requires removal in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. That means proved misbehaviour or incapacity, an inquiry after a properly admitted notice, and approval by both Houses. Each House must meet demanding membership and voting requirements before the President acts.

This framework separates allegations from proof. The opposition may accuse Gyanesh Kumar of irregularities or partisanship, but those claims alone do not remove him. The mock Parliament resolution had political significance, while only the full constitutional procedure could produce a binding result.