SC cannot remove CEC; So, why is CJI’s bench hearing PIL seeking his suspension?

• SC to hear pleas seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s suspension over alleged unilateral decisions

• CEC removal is governed by Parliament’s impeachment process under Article 324(5)

• Why admit the pleas? The report cites Abhishek Singhvi’s view that court hearings can legitimise or delegitimise grievances

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, October 5, a batch of petitions seeking the suspension of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenging decisions allegedly taken by the poll panel without the approval of the other two election commissioners.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana will hear the pleas filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who have also challenged decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Kumar without the concurrence of his two colleagues.

The PIL, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, has urged the top court to determine whether Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission (EC) as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.

The irony is that the decision of the Supreme Court in this case is a foregone conclusion. The apex court has no authority to remove the chief election commissioner. The president appoints the CEC for a tenure of six years. Gyanesh Kumar’s term as the CEC ends in February, 2029. Article 324(5) of the Constitution explicitly states that the CEC can be removed from office only “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.” Read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which contains the process for removing a Supreme Court judge, removal can only be “on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.”

Misbehaviour can comprise any corrupt practices or abuse of office. Over the years, courts have interpreted this to include actions which are incompatible with the office of the CEC or the CEC’s failure to discharge her official duties. Incapacity refers to a situation where the officer is unable to perform her duties.

However, the CEC can be removed only through impeachment by Parliament. Once a motion is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the president has no discretion in the matter and must order the CEC’s removal. An impeachment motion has been pending in Parliament since April 2026, with the presiding officers yet to take a decision. A fresh impeachment motion, which requires the signatures of at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha, is likely to be moved by the Opposition following fresh disclosures since then.

Once the motion is admitted, an enquiry is conducted to examine the validity of the charges. This involves forming a committee to investigate evidence of misbehaviour or incapacity. The motion for removal must secure the support of a majority of the total membership of each House and be passed by a two-thirds majority “present and voting” in both Houses of Parliament. Once passed successfully, the President orders the removal of the CEC.

If the Supreme Court, therefore, has no power to order the suspension or removal of the CEC, why was the PIL filed? Why did the Supreme Court Registry admit it? Why did the bench of Chief Justice of India not dismiss it outright? Why did it agree to hear it?

Senior advocate and MP Abhishek Singhvi offered an insight and an explanation while talking to YouTube channel The Red Mike. Cases in which no judicial review is possible, he said, are still taken to court as part of a legitimation process. Once the court dismisses such petitions, it becomes easier to say that because the highest court sees no merit in the case, the grievance is nor valid or legitimate.