Gyanesh Kumar Row: Why the Opposition Cannot Easily Remove the Chief Election Commissioner

Spread love

By TRH Op-Ed Desk

Constitutional expert R. Narayanan tells Manish Anand that Parliament holds the key to the CEC’s removal, while street protests alone are unlikely to resolve the opposition’s confrontation with the Election Commission.

New Delhi, October 13, 2026 — With opposition leaders stepping up their agitation against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and taking their protest march to the Supreme Court, constitutional expert R. Narayanan has argued that removing the head of the Election Commission is an exceptionally difficult process that cannot be bypassed through political pressure or street demonstrations.

In a conversation with Manish Anand for The Raisina Hills, Narayanan said the Constitution provides the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) with strong protection against removal, prescribing a procedure similar to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge.

“Unless he resigns, there is no other alternative,” Narayanan said, stressing that neither the Prime Minister nor the President can simply order the CEC’s removal outside the constitutionally prescribed process.

The opposition’s agitation has intensified amid allegations concerning the functioning of the Election Commission and decisions allegedly taken without adequate consultation with the other election commissioners. The controversy has also brought the issue of electoral-roll revisions into sharper focus.

Narayanan said the constitutional position must be distinguished from the political demands being raised against the CEC. Article 324 of the Constitution governs the Election Commission, while Article 124 provides the relevant framework for the removal procedure applicable to Supreme Court judges.

The CEC can be removed only through the prescribed parliamentary process, requiring the constitutionally mandated majorities on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Other election commissioners, by contrast, can be removed by the President on the CEC’s recommendation.

Can the Supreme Court intervene?

Narayanan maintained that the Supreme Court could examine the allegations concerning the Election Commission’s functioning, but he questioned whether it could directly remove the CEC.

He suggested that, depending on the findings and the legal issues before it, the Court might consider measures relating to the discharge of responsibilities within the Commission. However, he acknowledged that the precise scope of judicial intervention would depend on the circumstances and the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.

The discussion follows the opposition’s decision to approach the Supreme Court amid a growing public confrontation over the CEC. Allegations of unilateral decisions and inadequate consultation with the other two election commissioners remain matters requiring scrutiny and, where disputed, verification.

Narayanan also referred to the difficulty of removing constitutional functionaries, noting that the demanding parliamentary procedure has historically made the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges exceptionally difficult.

Street protests or political arithmetic?

Asked whether the protests against Gyanesh Kumar could continue for an extended period, Narayanan predicted that the agitation would eventually lose momentum unless the opposition translated its demands into an effective parliamentary strategy.

He argued that opposition parties seeking a change in the government’s position would need to consider the political arithmetic of the ruling coalition. He specifically mentioned Telugu Desam Party leader Chandrababu Naidu, Janata Dal (United) leader Nitish Kumar and Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) leader Chirag Paswan.

According to Narayanan, persuading these allies to withdraw support from the government would have a more direct political impact than demonstrations alone. Such a scenario, however, would depend on the allies’ decisions and cannot be assumed.

He also discussed a possible no-confidence motion against the Narendra Modi government, while acknowledging the government’s numerical strength in Parliament. An election boycott was another option raised during the conversation, although Manish Anand noted that opposition leaders had rejected that course, arguing that their absence could allow the government to push through consequential legislation without parliamentary resistance.

Electoral rolls emerge as a key question

Narayanan said the government and the Election Commission would have a responsibility to explain the position if allegations of large-scale deletions from electoral rolls were substantiated.

During the discussion, he referred to an allegation that 14 crore names had been removed from electoral rolls, while emphasising the need to establish whether the figure was accurate and to examine the reasons for any deletions.

“If the allegation is true,” Narayanan said in substance, the authorities would need to explain how such a large number of names could have been removed, accounting for factors such as deaths and changes of residence.

He also called for dialogue between the government and opposition parties, arguing that prolonged political confrontation could carry economic and administrative costs.