ECI tells Supreme Court the CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge
On 26 October, the Election Commission of India (ECI) filed a joint affidavit in the Supreme Court defending Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. It said the CEC can be removed only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge. It also said all three orders on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were issued unanimously, rejecting claims of unilateral action.
Why in news
The dispute: A petition questioned whether the CEC exercised powers that belong to the Commission as a collective body. Reports had pointed to objections by the other two Election Commissioners on some internal decisions. The ECI's response: All three SIR orders were unanimous. Form 6 was not amended by the SIR orders. The additional declaration is a separate document. The CEC enjoys constitutional protection against removal. These are the ECI's claims in court. They are not a judicial finding either way.
Prelims pointers
- Article 324(5): the CEC can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds of a Supreme Court judge. Other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation.
- A Supreme Court judge is removed under Article 124(4) by an address of each House of Parliament, on proved misbehaviour or incapacity, under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- The ECI has been a multi-member body since 1 October 1993. Under the Election Commission (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991, as amended, decisions are taken by majority where members differ.
- In T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the multi-member Commission and majority decision-making.
- Under the 2023 Act, a search committee headed by the Law Minister shortlists names, and a selection committee of the PM, the LoP and a Cabinet Minister recommends them to the President.
Mains angle
The CEC's removal protection is meant to shield the Commission from executive pressure. But protection against removal is different from accountability in decision-making. Trust in the ECI depends on: Transparent, recorded decisions with dissents noted. Real collective functioning of the three-member body. Clear reasons for roll revisions and deletions. Independence in appointments as well as in removal.