Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has said Parliament will follow the prescribed procedure if the Opposition submits a fresh motion seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. His statement brings the focus back to a constitutional process that is far more demanding than an ordinary parliamentary vote.

Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. The relevant grounds are proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The procedure is governed by the constitutional framework and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

The Opposition’s campaign against Kumar centres on allegations concerning the Election Commission’s handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and reported objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over aspects of the Commission’s decisions.

However, allegations, political demands and the submission of a removal notice do not establish that the constitutional grounds for removal have been met. The charges would have to undergo the prescribed scrutiny and inquiry before Parliament could consider the final removal address.

Birla’s October 22 statement does not indicate whether a new notice has been admitted or whether the allegations satisfy the legal threshold. It means that any fresh notice will be dealt with under the applicable rules. <Cite refs={[“turn356701search1″,”turn356701search2”]}/>

Step 1: How a removal motion begins

The first requirement is a formal notice of a motion seeking the CEC’s removal on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity.

Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the notice must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. The motion may be initiated in either House. Meeting the signature threshold does not automatically trigger an inquiry or guarantee that the motion will be admitted.

The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha examines the notice and may consult relevant persons and consider available material before deciding whether to admit or reject it.

This is the first major hurdle for the Opposition. A notice must meet the applicable procedural requirements, and its allegations must be considered within the legal framework for removal. The presiding officer’s decision determines whether the process proceeds to the next stage.

Birla has said he will examine any fresh notice according to parliamentary rules. He has not committed to admitting a motion against Kumar.

Step 2: What happens if the motion is admitted?

If a motion is admitted, an inquiry committee is constituted to investigate the grounds cited for removal. The committee has three members:

• A Supreme Court judge, selected from among the judges of the Supreme Court.
• A Chief Justice of a High Court.
• A distinguished jurist.

The committee examines the allegations and evidence under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The procedure gives the person facing the charges an opportunity to respond to the case.

The inquiry is a crucial stage because the constitutional standard is not simply whether MPs have lost confidence in the CEC. The issue is whether the grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity are established through the prescribed process.

If the committee finds that the charges have not been proved, the removal proceedings cannot advance on the basis of those charges. If it finds the charges proved, the motion proceeds for parliamentary consideration under the statutory framework.

Admission, therefore, is not equivalent to a finding of wrongdoing, and an inquiry does not itself remove the CEC.

Step 3: The two-House test that determines removal

Even if an inquiry committee establishes the charges, removal is not automatic. Both Houses of Parliament must pass an address seeking removal, with each House meeting the special-majority requirements laid down in Article 124(4) of the Constitution.

Each House must approve the address with:

• A majority of its total membership.
• A majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Both Houses must pass the address during the same session of Parliament. The address is then presented to the President, who issues the removal order in accordance with the constitutional process.

The requirement is more demanding than winning a simple majority among MPs who happen to vote. A motion must satisfy both the majority of the House’s total membership and the two-thirds threshold among members present and voting.

The Opposition would therefore need to navigate several separate stages: secure the required signatures, obtain admission of the motion, establish the charges through an inquiry and secure the required majorities in both Houses.

A political alliance may have sufficient numbers to submit a notice without necessarily having the votes required to complete the process. Conversely, the strength of the allegations cannot be determined solely by counting the MPs supporting the motion.

What can happen next in the Gyanesh Kumar case?

The immediate question is whether the Opposition submits a fresh notice and whether the relevant presiding officer admits it.

If the notice is rejected, the proposed proceedings would not advance through that notice. If it is admitted, the statutory inquiry process would follow. A finding that the charges are not proved would prevent the proceedings from advancing on those charges; a finding that they are proved would bring the motion to the parliamentary stage, where both Houses would still need to meet the special-majority requirements.

The political controversy concerns the Election Commission’s handling of electoral-roll revision and reported differences within the institution. The legal question is narrower: whether the specific allegations establish misbehaviour or incapacity under the constitutional removal standard.

The reported objections by other Election Commissioners may form part of the material cited by the Opposition, but internal disagreement alone does not establish a ground for removal. The evidence, the nature of the alleged conduct and the findings of the prescribed inquiry would matter.

There is also an important distinction between a demand for resignation and constitutional removal. Kumar could leave office through resignation, but a parliamentary removal motion is a separate process with its own requirements. The CEC cannot be removed by an ordinary executive order or a simple vote expressing political disapproval.

The procedure is designed to protect the independence of the office while allowing removal where the constitutionally specified grounds are established. It places the burden on the process to move beyond political allegations and establish the case through formal scrutiny.

For now, Birla’s statement signals no outcome on Kumar’s tenure. The next decisive developments will be the filing and admissibility of any fresh notice, the evidence placed before an inquiry committee if one is constituted, and the parliamentary numbers if the case reaches a final vote.

FAQs

1. Can the Chief Election Commissioner be impeached?

The CEC can be removed through a special constitutional procedure modelled on the removal process for a Supreme Court judge. The Constitution uses the framework of removal on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

2. How many MPs are needed to initiate the motion?

The notice must have the signatures of at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. Meeting this threshold does not guarantee admission.

3. Who decides whether the motion is admitted?

The Lok Sabha Speaker or the Rajya Sabha Chairman considers the notice and decides whether to admit or reject it under the applicable law and procedure.

4. Who investigates the charges if the motion is admitted?

A three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist investigates the allegations.

5. What majority is required to remove the CEC?

Each House must pass the removal address with a majority of its total membership and at least a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. Both Houses must pass it in the same session.

6. Does admitting the motion mean Gyanesh Kumar will be removed?

No. Admission leads to an inquiry. The charges must be proved, and both Houses must subsequently pass the removal address with the required majorities.

7. What has Om Birla said about the fresh motion?

On October 22, 2026, Birla said any fresh notice would be examined according to the prescribed parliamentary rules and procedures. He did not announce that a new motion had been admitted.

8. Has any Chief Election Commissioner been removed through this process?

No Chief Election Commissioner has previously been removed through this constitutional procedure. The outcome of any future attempt would depend on the applicable process and the evidence considered.