CEC can be removed only through certain procedures

 It is nothing short of astonishing that advocates claiming to practise before the Supreme Court should participate in a march demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. One would expect those who claim familiarity with constitutional law to know that the CEC cannot be removed at the government's whim or by street pressure. His removal is governed by a constitutional process comparable to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge. Unlike a minister, who can be removed by the Prime Minister or, in a state, by the Chief Minister, the CEC enjoys constitutionally protected tenure. Neither political expediency nor public agitation can substitute for the procedure prescribed by the Constitution.

The CEC can be removed only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The process requires a motion signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, followed by its admission by the presiding officer. A three-member inquiry committee must examine the charges and allow the CEC to respond. If the charges are not established, the proceedings end. If they are established, both Houses of Parliament must adopt the motion by the constitutionally prescribed special majority in the same session. Until this process is followed, demands for removal remain political slogans, not a constitutional determination. The removal of other Election Commissioners follows a different procedure: the President may remove them on the recommendation of the CEC.

This raises a fundamental question: what business does the Supreme Court Bar Association have in involving itself in a politically charged demand that disregards the constitutional mechanism for removal? A professional body representing the legal fraternity must be guided by constitutional principles, not by the temptation to play to the gallery. Advocates are entitled to protest, but they cannot claim constitutional principles as their professional inheritance while ignoring them when politically convenient.

Equally troubling is the reported intervention of the Bench directing the police to release the advocates concerned. The question is not whether the police are invariably right—they plainly are not. The question is whether the law should be allowed to take its course, subject to judicial scrutiny, rather than being pre-empted merely because those involved happen to be members of the legal fraternity. Neither the police nor the judiciary is infallible; both must remain accountable to the law. The rule of law cannot mean one standard for ordinary citizens and another for advocates.

Another claim circulating in newspaper reports is that the CEC overruled the objections of the other two Election Commissioners. This assertion demands closer scrutiny. The Election Commission is a multi-member body, and its decisions are governed by the applicable statutory framework, including the principle of majority decision-making. The CEC does not possess an unfettered veto over the other Commissioners. If a decision was taken against the majority view, the precise proceedings, recorded dissent and applicable legal provisions must be examined before accepting or rejecting the allegation. A newspaper report is not a substitute for the record, and an allegation is not a fact.

As for the protests reportedly organised by the so-called Cockroach Party, with the backing of other opposition parties, the less said, the better. Political opposition is legitimate in a democracy; so is peaceful protest. But neither political mobilisation nor professional solidarity can override the Constitution.

The real test of constitutional commitment is not whether one can raise a slogan demanding someone's removal, but whether one understands—and respects—the law governing that removal. For advocates, particularly those claiming to practise before the highest court of the land, that distinction should be elementary.