CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge, ECI tells top court
A common affidavit filed for the EC, CEC Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi say that any attempt to restrain the CEC’s functioning is contrary to the 2023 Act; asserts that Form 6 was not amended; West Bengal CEO’s officers filed appeals against inclusions
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The (ECI) submitted a joint affidavit to the Supreme Court defending the functioning and independence of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) against petitions alleging unilateral decision-making. The affidavit clarifies that the CEC cannot be removed except through a process identical to the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge, emphasizing the constitutional safeguards protecting the autonomy of the institution.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The controversy highlights the constitutional design of the , a crucial independent body mandated under to conduct free and fair elections. The affidavit reiterates the constitutional protection granted to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) under , which states that the CEC can only be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court (proven misbehaviour or incapacity). This security of tenure is a fundamental safeguard against political interference and executive overreach. The ECI's defense underscores the principle that the autonomy of the CEC is vital for the integrity of the electoral process. For UPSC, understanding the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the independence of constitutional bodies, particularly the removal procedures, is essential. Questions often test the comparative analysis of the removal process of various constitutional authorities like the CEC, CAG, and Supreme Court judges.
Governance
The petitions challenging the CEC's functioning bring focus to the internal dynamics and decision-making processes of a multi-member constitutional body. The ECI's affidavit clarifies that decisions are not unilateral but follow a collaborative process governed by the . Section 18 of this Act stipulates that in case of a difference of opinion among the CEC and the Election Commissioners, the matter shall be decided by a majority vote. The affidavit details the internal vetting process, where decisions are circulated and signed by all members before implementation, countering allegations of authoritarianism. This aspect is critical for UPSC Governance syllabus, as it deals with the principles of institutional transparency, accountability, and collective responsibility within apex regulatory and constitutional bodies. The debate surrounding the recent 2023 Act, which altered the appointment process of the CEC and ECs, forms the broader context of these governance challenges.
Legal
The ECI's response to allegations concerning the amendment of (the statutory form for inclusion in the electoral roll) involves an interpretation of the . The ECI clarified that an additional declaration form introduced during the special intensive revision (SIR) exercise was a supplementary measure to assist voters with 'mapping' and did not legally alter the statutory . Furthermore, the ECI addressed the filing of appeals in tribunals regarding the West Bengal electoral rolls, stating that these actions were taken by officers of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) under their authority as prescribed by the . For UPSC Prelims, familiarity with the key provisions of the Representation of the People Acts (1950 and 1951), including the statutory forms and the roles of election officials (like the CEO and Electoral Registration Officers), is a recurring requirement. The nuances of electoral roll preparation and the legal framework governing it are key testing areas.