Questions have been raised about the Election Commission of India following a broadcast report by a news outlet. According to the document, two board members flagged problems on no fewer than 14 occasions across a 10-month period, covering matters related to newly registered voters, removals from the electoral roll, and voter data infrastructure. The body overseeing elections stated that all rulings, encompassing those pertaining to the Special Intensive Revision, were reached by unanimous agreement among its members. These events have also drawn renewed attention to the procedure for removing Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from office. On 24 September, party insiders from the Congress briefed a television news outlet that opposition lawmakers were drafting formal motions in both parliamentary chambers calling for Kumar's dismissal. The procedure for dismissing a Chief Election Commissioner follows a distinct legal pathway from that of an ordinary parliamentary vote. Under the Constitution, dismissing the Chief Election Commissioner follows the same procedure and standards applied to removing a Supreme Court judge. Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission of India holds authority over the oversight, administration, and conduct of electoral processes. A legislative framework governing the appointment process, tenure, and service conditions of election commissioners was subsequently put in place through an Act of Parliament passed in 2023. The 2023 Act establishes that a three-member Selection Committee puts forward nominations, upon which the President officially appoints the Chief Election Commissioner and fellow Election Commissioners. The body is headed by the Prime Minister, who acts as chair, alongside the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister appointed upon the Prime Minister's recommendation. Under the legislation, a Search Committee chaired by the Minister for Law and Justice would be tasked with drawing up a shortlist of nominees for the Selection Committee to review. Legislation enacted in 2023 outlines the qualifying criteria for candidates being evaluated for those constitutional positions. Applicants are required to have served in, or currently occupy, a position equivalent in seniority to that of Secretary to the Government of India. Under the legislation, candidates must demonstrate proven integrity alongside relevant expertise in overseeing and administering electoral processes. A term of six years applies, with mandatory retirement upon reaching 65, whichever milestone arrives first. Reappointment is prohibited under the legislation. Under the constitution, a Chief Election Commissioner heads the body, alongside a variable number of additional Election Commissioners appointed at the discretion of the President. The Chief Election Commissioner assumes the role of chairperson whenever additional Election Commissioners are in place. According to broadcasts from one television outlet, Sandhu and Joshi put forward objections across multiple areas throughout the SIR period, encompassing amendments to Form 6, the removal of voters from rolls, and the management of electoral data. The Election Commission pushed back against claims that its concluding determinations reflected an internal divide within the body. The body noted that divergent views among its members are permissible, while every ruling handed down over the preceding twelve months — including those tied to SIR matters — was reached by unanimous agreement. The Special Intensive Revision serves as a process for reviewing and updating voter registration records. The exercise, conducted at a national level, has prompted both political and legal scrutiny, with disputes centring on the removal of voter registrations, supporting documentation, and the methods employed to validate records. According to a report by a broadcast news outlet, the two Election Commissioners had raised formal objections to multiple aspects of the voter registration process, including proposed modifications to Form 6, the document through which new voters apply to enrol, along with reservations about centralised control over voter databases and the procedures governing additions and removals from electoral rolls. According to the body, all three commissioners gave unanimous approval to the rulings in question. Under the Constitution, the Chief Election Commissioner holds greater job security against dismissal than regular government employees. Under Article 324(5), the Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed through the same procedure and on the same grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge, a safeguard that Section 11(2) of the 2023 Act also replicates. Removal from office requires demonstration of either misconduct or incapacity, as outlined under Article 124(4). Such a motion must be grounded in more than political disagreement or displeasure with a particular ruling; the established parliamentary and inquiry procedures must be followed. A parliamentary notice of motion marks the start of the procedure. A notice of motion requires backing from a minimum of 100 lawmakers in the lower house or at least 50 in the upper house. The chairperson may review the submitted documentation prior to ruling on whether the motion will be accepted. When a motion is accepted, the relevant allegations become subject to formal investigation. A review panel assesses the available documentation concerning the reported misconduct or unfitness. Removal is not guaranteed to follow automatically, even when an inquiry has taken place. For the motion to succeed, it requires approval from both legislative chambers. Passage requires approval from a majority of all legislators in each chamber, along with two-thirds of those present and casting votes. The President may only issue the removal order for the CEC once both legislative chambers have passed the motion through the prescribed constitutional process. According to Section 11(3) of the 2023 Act, any Election Commissioner apart from the Chief Election Commissioner may only be removed from office upon a formal recommendation made by the Chief Election Commissioner. Notices were filed by Opposition lawmakers across both parliamentary chambers on 12 March. A total of 130 MPs endorsed the Lok Sabha motion, with 63 parliamentarians putting their names to the Rajya Sabha version. The filings addressed matters relating to the SIR and questions of conduct on the part of the CEC. Both the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman turned down the notices that month. The Rajya Sabha Chairman subsequently released a comprehensive account of the reasoning behind the ruling. To date, the constitutional removal procedure has never been invoked against any holder of the Chief Election Commissioner position. Parliamentary leaders from the opposition are planning their next legislative action in response to a report aired by a prominent broadcast outlet. Party insiders informed the outlet that legal specialists were helping prepare the planned motion, which would be introduced in both legislative chambers. The Election Commission has stated that divergent opinions and internal deliberations are a natural feature of any multi-member body, and that all formal rulings were reached by consensus.
