Impeachment notice against CEC tests constitutional safeguards under Article 324(5)

Hindustan Times - India · 6 Oct 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

Former civil servants and activists served an impeachment notice against CEC Gyanesh Kumar citing 'proved misbehaviour' under Article 324(5), challenging the ECI's institutional integrity amid electoral roll revision controversies.

Key points

Article 324(5) of the Constitution is invoked in the impeachment notice, which provides for the removal of Election Commissioners only through a process akin to Supreme Court judges - a critical constitutional safeguard for ECI's independence.

The notice alleges violation of collective decision-making in the ECI, particularly regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted without full commission deliberation, undermining institutional governance norms.

ECINET system deployment is challenged as circumventing statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, raising questions about technological overreach in electoral processes.

[GS2-Governance] The 13.3 crore voter deletions through SIR highlight systemic governance failures in maintaining electoral rolls, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups - a direct challenge to constitutional guarantees under Articles 325-326.

The charges include unauthorized changes to Form 6, altering voter registration procedures without legal sanction, potentially violating statutory provisions under Section 32(1) of RPA 1950.

[GS3-Technology] The ECINET controversy connects to broader GS3 questions about balancing technological efficiency with legal safeguards in governance systems.

Signatories include constitutional authorities like former LG Najeeb Jung and ex-home secretary GK Pillai, lending institutional weight to the challenge against ECI's functioning.

The Supreme Court's prior refusal to intervene based on media reports sets judicial context, leaving constitutional questions about ECI accountability unresolved.

Way Forward: The ECI must institutionalize transparent decision-making protocols, establish tech deployment safeguards through parliamentary oversight, and create an independent grievance redressal mechanism for electoral roll disputes to restore public confidence.

Key terms

Representation of the People Act 1950

Foundational legislation governing electoral rolls and voter registration. Section 32(1) imposes statutory duties on Electoral Registration Officers, making its alleged circumvention through ECINET a key constitutional law issue for GS2 Polity.

Article 324(5)

Constitutional provision governing removal of Election Commissioners, requiring Parliament's impeachment process similar to Supreme Court judges. UPSC significance lies in its role as a safeguard for ECI's independence, tested recently amid allegations of executive interference in electoral governance.

Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

ECI's periodic electoral roll purification exercise that became controversial for mass voter deletions (13.3 crore). Relevant for GS2 governance questions about balancing electoral integrity with inclusive representation, particularly its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities.

ECINET

Election Commission's technological system for electoral roll management. UPSC relevance stems from GS3 debates about digital governance - its alleged misuse highlights tensions between administrative efficiency and statutory compliance with RPA 1950 provisions.