Opposition parties are preparing a fresh parliamentary move to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar after their earlier notices were rejected, opening a new front in a confrontation that has sharpened around the conduct, credibility and autonomy of the election process. Leaders from Congress, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party and DMK are among those understood to be involved in drafting a revised notice aimed at attracting wider backing from across the opposition benches. The renewed effort follows a failed first round in March, when opposition MPs submitted notices in both Houses seeking Kumar’s removal. By early April, opposition leaders were publicly protesting the rejection of those notices by the presiding authorities, arguing that the move had blocked what they described as a constitutionally available remedy. Reports at the time said 193 MPs had backed the earlier initiative, including 130 from the Lok Sabha and 63 from the Rajya Sabha.
Saturday’s discussions suggest the opposition is now trying to avoid the procedural weaknesses that undermined the first attempt. Reports in multiple outlets said senior MPs from several parties were coordinating a redrafted notice and looking for a larger pool of signatories, with some accounts saying they hope to cross the 200-mark to demonstrate broader parliamentary support. That does not change the steep constitutional bar for success, but it signals that the matter is being framed politically as much as procedurally.
Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. That makes the office far more protected than most public posts and is intended to insulate the election authority from executive or partisan pressure. In practical terms, removal requires Parliament to adopt a motion on grounds such as proven misbehaviour or incapacity by a special majority in each House — a majority of the total membership of that House and at least two-thirds of members present and voting — before the President can issue an order.
That threshold explains why the opposition’s latest effort is likely to function, at least for now, as a high-voltage political indictment rather than an immediately winnable legislative exercise. The numbers required are formidable, and there is no indication that the ruling side is prepared to entertain such a motion. Yet for opposition parties, the campaign appears designed to keep questions alive about the Election Commission’s independence, especially at a time when trust in institutions is becoming a central contest in national politics.
Kumar, the 26th Chief Election Commissioner, took charge on 19 February 2025, according to the Election Commission’s official profile. A 1988-batch Kerala cadre IAS officer, he now chairs a constitutional body that administers elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. The Commission describes itself as an autonomous constitutional authority, a description that sits at the heart of the present dispute because the opposition’s case rests on the argument that this autonomy has been compromised.
Opposition parties have been sharpening those allegations for weeks, accusing the Commission under Kumar of failing to maintain sufficient distance from the executive. Supporters of the Chief Election Commissioner and the broader official position have countered that the Election Commission continues to function within the constitutional and legal framework governing elections and that criticism has escalated in tandem with politically charged contests. Kumar himself, in public remarks after taking office, said the Commission was, is and will remain with the voters in accordance with the Constitution, electoral laws and rules.
The fresh move also comes amid an atmosphere of heightened coordination among opposition parties after a separate parliamentary contest energised their floor strategy, according to reports on Sunday’s political developments. That context matters because the bid against Kumar is not unfolding in isolation; it is part of a broader attempt by opposition leaders to translate occasional parliamentary unity into sustained institutional pressure on the government and bodies they believe have tilted away from neutrality.