The ECI, the CEC and the two Election Commissioners have told the Supreme Court, in a joint affidavit, that a CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge. They say any attempt to restrain the CEC’s functioning is contrary to law.

The ECI is a constitutional body under Article 324, which gives it the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

• Removal of the CEC: Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge. The other ECs can be removed only on the CEC’s recommendation.
• Removal of a judge: A Supreme Court judge can be removed only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, through an address passed by both Houses of Parliament by a special majority.
• As we see earlier: The ADR petition had argued earlier, Section 16 of the 2023 Act gives lifelong immunity from court proceedings to current and former CEC and ECs for acts done in official duty, and its validity is under challenge.

The affidavit describes a multi-member process that depends on consultation.

• Majority rule: A difference of opinion is settled by majority under Section 18 of the 2023 Act.
• Order of approval: A decision is first sent to one EC, then the other, and finally to the CEC. Approved decisions carry the signatures of all three and are then notified and carried out by the EC Secretariat.
• When members are not present: The Commission accepts that when a member cannot be present in person, approval is taken through electronic means and recorded in the file later.

• Independence: It tests whether the CEC’s independence is protected by the removal safeguard and by collective decision-making.
• Accountability: Petitioners allege authoritarian functioning, while the Commission says media reports are not evidence, so the court must decide what material it can rely on.
• Public trust: The case follows the SIR controversy and protests demanding the CEC’s exit.
• Internal functioning: The letter to the Cabinet Secretary suggests tension within the Commission.

• Evidence from media reports: Courts need proof, but a closed institution gives little public information, so allegations often rest on reports.
• Collective decision-making in practice: Approval by electronic means and recording later can make it hard to check how a decision was really taken.
• Removal is hard to use: Removal “like a judge” is a very high bar, which protects independence but leaves few options against alleged misconduct.
• Trust deficit: Opposition parties and the Commission are in open dispute, which can weaken faith in the electoral process.

• Article 324 vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in the ECI.
• Article 324(5): the CEC is removable like a Supreme Court judge. Other ECs can be removed only on the CEC’s recommendation.
• Article 124(4): removal needs an address by each House with a special majority on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• The 2023 Act replaced the 1991 Act. The selection committee has the PM, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.