Opposition to move fresh impeachment motion against India’s Chief Election Commissioner amid SIR row

Senior opposition parties said on Sept. 24 they will submit fresh impeachment notices in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, escalating a political confrontation that has deepened since reports of internal dissent at the Election Commission.

Opposition leaders told reporters they have agreed to coordinate a joint notice and aim to place it before the presiding officers within days to a fortnight. The move follows an investigative report that recorded objections from two Election Commissioners about steps taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, allegations the opposition says amount to a systemic threat to free and fair elections.

“Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our Constitution,” said the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, setting out the political rationale for the removal drive. Other opposition figures demanded immediate suspension of the SIR exercise, an independent audit of recent roll changes and, in several cases, the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation or arrest.

The Election Commission responded to the controversy with a brief clarification on Sept. 24, saying that its press note of Sept. 23 “has been issued with the approval of the full Commission” and stressing that issuing such statements after collective approval is part of regular institutional practice.

What the impeachment process requires

The legal route to remove a Chief Election Commissioner mirrors the constitutional procedure for removing a Supreme Court judge. A removal motion must be initiated in either House and be supported at the outset by the signatures of at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. If a presiding officer admits the motion, the matter proceeds to a formal inquiry.

Under the established procedure, an inquiry committee is constituted to investigate the charges. Only if that committee records a finding of proved misbehaviour or incapacity does the motion proceed to a full vote. For the motion to pass, each House must approve it by a special majority — that is, a majority of the total membership and not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. After both Houses pass such an address, the President acts to remove the CEC.

Opposition leaders note that an earlier attempt to remove the CEC earlier in the year was rejected by the presiding officers, who said the notice did not disclose prima facie proof of misbehaviour. The new effort, they say, will be accompanied by a more detailed set of allegations and supporting material designed to meet the procedural threshold for admission.

Political stakes and likely responses

The impeachment push comes at a politically sensitive moment. Opposition parties argue the alleged conduct undercuts confidence in the electoral system ahead of several state-level contests; the governing coalition and its supporters call the campaign a partisan manoeuvre intended to undermine the poll body and rally the opposition’s base.

Party spokespeople aligned with the government have described the accusations as politically motivated and urged that institutions be allowed to function without disruption. The Election Commission’s short clarification is likely to be used by the government and its allies to argue that the matter is being addressed internally and does not justify parliamentary removal proceedings.

Opposition leaders have also signalled non-parliamentary pressure: several parties and allied activists plan protests at state election offices, and at least one national pressure group has demanded the CEC step down within 48 hours or face nationwide agitation. Street mobilisation, party rallies and parliamentary notices together are likely to keep the dispute in the headlines for weeks.

Possible timetable

Practically, a fresh notice could be submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman within days; whether either presiding officer admits the motion depends on whether they find the material prima facie sufficient. If admitted, the inquiry and debate could stretch over weeks or months, with the special-majority voting requirement making actual removal difficult without very large cross-party consensus.

Legal experts and senior parliamentarians expect sharp floor battles, challengeable rulings from presiding officers and likely high-profile public hearings if the motion is taken up for inquiry. Whatever the outcome, the episode is set to intensify scrutiny of the Election Commission’s procedures, the 2023 changes to selection and service rules, and the broader debate over institutional independence.

For now, the immediate developments to watch are the formal submission of notices in both Houses, any orders by presiding officers on admission, further statements from the Election Commission clarifying internal decision-making, and the scale of protests the opposition mobilises in the coming days.