THE DEBATE over Gyanesh Kumar’s continuance as India’s Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) raises a question that extends beyond any individual: how much confidence do citizens retain in the institution responsible for conducting elections?
The future of Indian democracy depends on the ability of constitutional institutions to function independently, remain accountable for their decisions and protect every eligible citizen’s right to vote. The controversy surrounding the CEC must therefore be assessed through evidence, constitutional principles and the Election Commission’s performance.
ALSO READ: Mera Hou Chongba 2026 reaffirms hill-valley ties amid Manipur crisis
The Election Commission of India (ECI) oversees elections to Parliament and state legislatures, as well as those for the offices of President and Vice-President. Preparing and revising electoral rolls is central to its responsibilities. Public confidence in the Commission consequently influences the credibility of elections and the acceptance of their outcomes.
Opposition to Kumar has intensified over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Opposition parties and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) have alleged that the exercise could disenfranchise eligible citizens. The ECI and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), however, have rejected allegations that it is intended to secure political advantage.
ALSO READ: Democracy or Anarchy: Nagaland — Who Runs the State?
Such disputes require scrutiny based on evidence, clear public explanations and accessible mechanisms for correcting errors. An allegation alone does not establish wrongdoing. Equally, a denial cannot substitute for a reasoned response to concerns supported by evidence.
According to the account cited in this article, the ECI told the Supreme Court on October 26 that Kumar had not taken decisions on the SIR unilaterally and that three relevant orders had received unanimous approval. If accurately reported, this clarification is material to assessing the responsibilities of the CEC and the Commission collectively.
The demand for Kumar’s removal has also reached Parliament. The Lok Sabha Secretariat communication cited in the account states that a notice dated March 12, 2026, signed by 130 Lok Sabha MPs, was not admitted by the Speaker. The rejection of a notice does not, by itself, establish that the decision was politically motivated. Any such conclusion requires supporting evidence.
ALSO READ: Sinai Camp Raid Opens Pandora’s Box: Government Failure…
Understanding the constitutional safeguards governing the CEC’s removal is essential to this debate. Article 324(5) does not make the officeholder immune from removal. It provides that the CEC may be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Article 124(4) identifies proved misbehaviour or incapacity as the grounds for such removal.
These safeguards serve two purposes: protecting the CEC from political pressure while preserving a constitutional route to accountability where the grounds for removal are established.
Under the inquiry procedure described in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a notice requires the signatures of at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. The Speaker or Chairman, as applicable, then considers whether to admit it. Meeting the signature threshold permits consideration of the notice; it does not establish the allegations.
Following admission, the procedure provides for a three-member inquiry committee comprising the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist. It would therefore be inaccurate to suggest that the Chief Justice of India must personally chair every such inquiry.
The committee is constituted following admission of the motion, not following its rejection by both Houses. Where notices are submitted in both Houses on the same day, the statutory procedure requires admission in both before a joint committee is constituted.
Removal ultimately requires each House to support an address to the President by a majority of its total membership and by at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. Both thresholds must be satisfied. The Constitution requires the address to be presented in the same parliamentary session; it does not require both Houses to vote on the same day. Removal takes effect through an order of the President after the constitutional requirements have been fulfilled.
If Kumar continues in office, the immediate test will be the Commission’s conduct. Can it explain the grounds for its decisions clearly? Can it correct electoral roll errors promptly? Do eligible citizens have a fair opportunity to establish their entitlement to registration and challenge the exclusion of their names?
The answers will shape public trust. Failure to address substantiated complaints could deepen suspicion and weaken confidence in the electoral process. Transparent decisions, responsive grievance mechanisms and timely corrections could help restore that confidence.
Protecting the ECI’s independence also requires that any attempt to remove the CEC follow constitutional procedures and rest on evidence. Public protest has a legitimate role in demanding accountability, while findings of misconduct must emerge from a fair examination of the allegations.
India needs an Election Commission that commands public confidence, listens to grievances, explains its decisions and protects the voting rights of all eligible citizens equally. Whether the CEC remains in office or leaves, that objective must guide the debate: preserving elections that are free, fair and impartial.
(The views expressed are personal. The author is a freelance journalist.)
