Opposition to move Parliament motion to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The Opposition will soon move a motion in both Houses of Parliament to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Congress sources told The Indian Express. An Express investigation found Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised SIR-related questions on record at least 14 times in 10 months. The Election Commission called such notes part of its decision-making process. Earlier notices, signed by 130 and 63 MPs on March 12, were rejected in April.

Written by AI from Indian Express — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 24 Sept 2026, 5:33 pm IST

Source

Indian Express — India · read the original report ↗

#election commission#parliament#opposition#sir#gyanesh kumar

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

Opposition will soon move a motion in both Houses to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar. — Attributed only to unnamed Congress sources speaking to The Indian Express; no official confirmation in source.
Questions on SIR-related issues were raised on record at least 14 times in 10 months within the three-member EC by Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. — Attributed to an investigation by The Indian Express; figure appears in source, not independently verifiable here.
The Election Commission acknowledged the notes but called them part of its decision-making process and standard practice. — Attributed to an ECI press note signed by Deputy Director P Pawan; quoted directly in source.
The March 12 notices carried 130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha signatures, against thresholds of 100 and 50. — Figures appear in source; thresholds stated without citation of specific rule text.
Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the earlier notice on April 6, citing no prima facie case of misbehaviour under Articles 324(5) and 124(4). — Attributed to a dated order quoted in the source.

Written by AI from Indian Express — India · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

On the arithmetic, this motion has almost no chance of succeeding — the Opposition does not command the majority a removal process needs. But winning is not the point: the aim is to force a debate on the SIR onto the parliamentary record and convert the electoral-rolls question into campaign material. The Indian Express finding that concerns were raised on record at least 14 times gives the Opposition a sharper weapon — it lets them argue this is no longer only a political allegation, but questions raised from inside the Commission itself.

The April notices carried 130 and 63 signatures — above the required thresholds — yet were rejected, which shows the real hurdle is not numbers but admission by the presiding officers.
The Rajya Sabha Chairman's reasoning that "administrative disagreements" cannot ground a removal is precisely the obstacle the Opposition must now clear, which is why Congress sources stress the motion is being drafted with legal experts.
An effort earlier led by the Trinamool Congress now resurfacing through Congress sources on behalf of a "joint Opposition" reads as an attempt to show INDIA-bloc unity on this issue.
The treasury benches can frame this as dragging the electoral body into politics, and the Chairman's warning about the Commission's independence is their strongest available ground.
The EC's choice to acknowledge the notes as part of a "decision-making process" rather than deny them is institutionally normal, but not saying how the concerns were addressed keeps the political question alive.

What to watch — Watch whether the notice is actually filed, on what grounds the presiding officers respond this time, and whether every INDIA-bloc party signs on.

The story does not establish that the motion has been finalised or that it will be admitted, nor does it independently settle whether the Commissioners' objections point to wrongdoing or to routine internal deliberation.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 6 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Opposition, led by the Congress and Trinamool Congress, is preparing a fresh motion in both Houses of Parliament to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, after an earlier attempt in March 2025 was rejected in April. The trigger is an Indian Express investigation showing that the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, recorded questions on Special Intensive Revision (SIR)-related issues at least 14 times in 10 months. The Election Commission has acknowledged the internal notes but described them as a routine part of its "decision-making process". A CEC can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge, under Articles 324(5) read with 124(4).

Key facts

Congress sources told The Indian Express that a motion to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar is being drafted with legal experts and notices will be submitted in both Houses on behalf of the joint Opposition.
An Indian Express investigation found SIR-related questions were raised on record within the three-member Election Commission at least 14 times over the last 10 months.
The objections were raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Issues flagged included changes to electoral forms and the handling of documents and data related to revision of electoral rolls.
The ECI, in a press note signed by Deputy Director P Pawan, said differing views are a normal part of deliberation and written notes and internal checks-and-balances are "standard, ongoing practices".
The ECI did not respond to the specific concerns raised by the two Commissioners, nor say whether or how they were addressed.
Opposition parties, led by the Trinamool Congress, submitted removal notices in both Houses on March 12; the Lok Sabha notice had 130 MP signatures and the Rajya Sabha notice 63.
A removal motion requires at least 100 MP signatures in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha.

Timeline

Last 10 months (as per the Express investigation)Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi raise SIR-related questions on record within the EC at least 14 times.
March 12Opposition parties, led by Trinamool Congress, submit notices in both Houses seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar's removal — 130 signatures in Lok Sabha, 63 in Rajya Sabha.
April 6Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejects the notice, saying no prima facie case of misbehaviour was established.
AprilThe earlier motion attempt is rejected by both the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Wednesday (after the Express investigation)ECI issues a press note acknowledging the internal notes but calling them part of its decision-making process.
Soon (as stated by Congress sources)Fresh removal motion to be moved in both Houses on behalf of the joint Opposition.

Who has a stake

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar — Faces a second Opposition attempt at a parliamentary removal motion over the conduct of electoral roll revision.
Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — Their recorded objections on SIR, electoral forms and data handling are now central to the political controversy.
Election Commission of India — Its institutional credibility and the claim that internal dissent is routine deliberation are under public scrutiny.
Congress and the joint Opposition — Seeking to convert the Express findings into a viable removal motion after the April rejection.
Trinamool Congress — Led the earlier March 12 notices in both Houses seeking Kumar's removal.
Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan and the Lok Sabha Speaker — Hold the gatekeeping power to admit or reject removal notices; rejected the earlier ones in April.
Voters and electors covered by SIR — Accuracy of electoral rolls and handling of their documents and data depend on how the flagged concerns are resolved.

Why it matters

A removal motion against a sitting Chief Election Commissioner tests the constitutional balance between parliamentary accountability and the insulation the Election Commission enjoys to stay independent. The recorded internal dissent by two Commissioners on electoral roll revision raises questions about how a multi-member constitutional body arrives at decisions that affect who can vote. The Rajya Sabha Chairman's April reasoning — that admitting motions based on administrative disagreement could itself harm EC independence — frames the core dispute.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

A CEC can be removed only in the manner and on grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge — Article 324(5) read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
Ground for removal: proved "misbehaviour" or incapacity; the presiding officer first assesses a prima facie case.
Signature threshold for a removal motion: at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha.
March 12 notices: 130 signatures in Lok Sabha, 63 in Rajya Sabha; rejected by order dated April 6.
The Election Commission of India is a three-member body — the CEC and two Election Commissioners (Sandhu and Joshi).
C P Radhakrishnan is the Rajya Sabha Chairman who rejected the earlier removal notice.

Mains framing

The move to seek the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar sits at the intersection of two constitutional values: the accountability of a constitutional functionary to Parliament and the insulation of the Election Commission from political pressure. The proximate cause is an Indian Express investigation showing at least 14 recorded instances in 10 months where Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi questioned SIR-related matters, including changes to electoral forms and the handling of documents and data in electoral roll revision; the ECI's reply characterised these as normal deliberation and standard internal checks-and-balances, but did not address the substance or say how the concerns were resolved. The earlier notices of March 12, though they crossed the signature thresholds of 100 and 50 MPs, were rejected on April 6 on the ground that no prima facie case of "misbehaviour" under Articles 324(5) and 124(4) was made out, that some allegations were already decided or under judicial review, and that admitting motions grounded in administrative disagreement or political perception could itself erode EC independence. The implication is that the high constitutional threshold for removal makes Parliament an unlikely forum for resolving disputes about electoral roll methodology. The way forward, on the source's own terms, lies in the EC explaining how internally recorded objections were considered and closed, so that the record of deliberation becomes a source of confidence rather than contestation.

Key terms

SIR (Special Intensive Revision): The exercise of revising electoral rolls whose forms, documents and data handling drew recorded questions from two Election Commissioners.
Article 324(5): Constitutional provision that protects the CEC from removal except in the manner and on grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge.
Article 124(4): Lays down the process for removing a Supreme Court judge on proved misbehaviour or incapacity — the standard applied to the CEC.
Prima facie case of misbehaviour: The threshold a presiding officer must find satisfied before admitting a removal notice; held unmet in the April 6 order.
Election Commission of India: The three-member constitutional body — CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi — that conducts elections and revises rolls.
Machine-readable electoral rolls: Issue raised in the earlier removal notice concerning the format in which the EC shares voter roll data.

Practice questions

Discuss the constitutional safeguards for the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner under Articles 324(5) and 124(4). Do they adequately balance independence with accountability?
The Rajya Sabha Chairman held that removal motions based on "administrative disagreements or political perceptions" could affect the independence of the Election Commission. Critically examine this reasoning.
What does recorded internal dissent within a multi-member constitutional body like the Election Commission signify for institutional transparency? Illustrate with reference to the SIR controversy.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyDelhi women students cite transport gaps, safety fears in commute →

← All stories