In India, the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from his office in the same manner and on the same grounds as

1. Constitutional Framework and Structure of the ECI (basic)

To ensure the purity and fairness of the democratic process, the makers of our Constitution established the Election Commission of India (ECI) as an independent, permanent, and quasi-judicial body. Found in Part XV under Article 324, it is tasked with the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President of India. Notably, the ECI does not handle local body elections (Panchayats and Municipalities); those are the domain of separate State Election Commissions NCERT Class XI, Election and Representation, p.68.

The structure of the ECI is flexible by design. Article 324(2) states that the Commission consists of a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and such number of other Election Commissioners (ECs) as the President may from time to time fix. While it began as a single-member body in 1950, it has evolved into a multi-member body to handle the increasing complexity of Indian elections Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Election Commission, p.419.

A critical pillar of the ECI’s independence is the security of tenure granted to the CEC. Under Article 324(5), the CEC cannot be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. This means the CEC can only be removed by the President based on a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Interestingly, while the other Election Commissioners also enjoy some protection, they can be removed by the President only on the recommendation of the CEC.

Feature	Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)	Election Commissioners (ECs)
Removal Basis	Same as a Supreme Court Judge	Only on recommendation of the CEC
Status/Salary	Equal to a SC Judge	Equal to a SC Judge

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI, ELECTION AND REPRESENTATION, p.68; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Election Commission, p.419-420

2. Independence and Safeguards of the Commission (basic)

To ensure that the Election Commission of India (ECI) operates without fear or favor, the Constitution provides it with several robust safeguards. Think of these as a protective "armor" that prevents the government of the day from influencing election outcomes. Under Article 324, the Commission is established as a permanent and independent body Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Election Commission, p.419. The most significant safeguard is the security of tenure provided to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). The CEC cannot be removed from office at the "pleasure" of the President; instead, the removal process is extremely rigorous, identical to that of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

This means the CEC can only be removed by the President based on a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority, on the grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity. Furthermore, the conditions of service (like salary or allowances) of the CEC cannot be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill., Election Commission, p.420. This ensures that no government can "punish" a CEC for making a neutral but inconvenient decision by cutting their pay or changing their terms of service mid-tenure.

However, there is a nuanced difference in how other members are protected. While the CEC has the highest level of protection, the other Election Commissioners (ECs) or Regional Commissioners can be removed by the President only on the recommendation of the CEC. This is designed to shield them from direct political interference while maintaining the CEC’s leadership within the body Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), ELECTION AND REPRESENTATION, p.69.

Feature	Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)	Other Election Commissioners (ECs)
Removal Process	Same as a Supreme Court Judge (Parliamentary process)	By the President, on the recommendation of the CEC
Service Conditions	Cannot be varied to their disadvantage	Determined by the President
Decision Making	Equal power (1 vote)	Equal power (1 vote)

Despite these protections, some critics point out "cracks" in the armor. For instance, the Constitution has not prescribed specific qualifications (legal or judicial) for members, nor has it debarred retiring commissioners from future government appointments. This has led to recent judicial interventions, like the 2023 Anoop Baranwal case, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a transparent appointment process to ensure absolute neutrality Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Election Commission, p.420.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Election Commission, p.419; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill., Election Commission, p.420; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), ELECTION AND REPRESENTATION, p.69

3. Powers and Functional Domain of the ECI (basic)

To understand how the Election Commission of India (ECI) operates, we must look at its functional domain. The Constitution and various laws vest the ECI with a wide range of responsibilities that ensure elections are not just frequent, but fair. These powers are generally classified into three distinct categories: Administrative, Advisory, and Quasi-Judicial Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Election Commission, p.421.

The Administrative domain covers the nuts and bolts of management. This includes determining the territorial areas of constituencies based on the Delimitation Commission Act, preparing and periodically revising electoral rolls, and notifying the dates and schedules of elections. On the other hand, the Advisory domain sees the ECI acting as a consultant to the highest offices. For instance, the ECI advises the President of India on matters relating to the disqualifications of members of Parliament and advises Governors on the disqualification of members of State Legislatures Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Election Commission, p.421.

Finally, the Quasi-Judicial domain allows the ECI to act like a court in specific circumstances. It settles disputes relating to the recognition of political parties and the assignment of election symbols to them. Because these decisions impact civil rights and political existence, the ECI must follow principles of natural justice, such as hearing the parties involved before making a decision Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.158.

Functional Category	Key Responsibility	Example
Administrative	Execution and Management	Enforcing the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).
Advisory	Expert Consultation	Advising the President on MP disqualifications.
Quasi-Judicial	Dispute Resolution	Resolving a split in a political party regarding who gets the party symbol.

To perform these diverse roles without fear or favor, the Constitution provides the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) with a specific safeguard: Security of Tenure. Under Article 324(5), the CEC cannot be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. This high threshold—requiring a special majority in Parliament—ensures the ECI remains independent from the executive branch of the day Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.355.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Election Commission, p.420-421; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.355; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, p.158

4. The Mechanism of Judicial Removal in India (intermediate)

To ensure the independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Constitution provides the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) with a security of tenure similar to that of a Supreme Court judge. According to Article 324(5), the CEC cannot be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p. 355. This is a deliberate design to prevent the executive (the government) from arbitrarily dismissing an official who oversees the fairness of their own elections.

The removal process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and it is intentionally rigorous. There are only two constitutional grounds for removal: "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity". As noted in legal scholarship, "misbehaviour" isn't just a simple mistake; it implies a degree of mens rea (guilty mind) or improper conduct D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.342. The process follows these specific steps:

• Initiation: A removal motion must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha and submitted to the Speaker/Chairman.
• Investigation: If the motion is admitted, the Speaker/Chairman constitutes a three-member committee consisting of: (1) a Supreme Court judge, (2) a Chief Justice of a High Court, and (3) a distinguished jurist Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p. 355.
• The Vote: If the committee finds the charges true, the House considers the motion. It must be passed by a Special Majority in each House (a majority of the total membership AND two-thirds of those present and voting) NCERT, Political Science Class XI, JUDICIARY, p.128.
• Presidential Order: Finally, the President issues an order for removal.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.355; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.342; NCERT, Political Science Class XI, JUDICIARY, p.128

5. Comparing Constitutional Bodies: CAG vs. Attorney General (intermediate)

To understand why certain constitutional offices are more independent than others, we must look at their security of tenure and removal procedures. In the Indian Constitution, the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) and the Attorney-General (AG) represent two very different models of executive relationship. The CAG is designed to be a watchdog of the public purse, while the AG serves as the government’s chief legal advisor.

Under Article 148, the CAG is granted a high degree of independence. The CAG does not serve at the "pleasure" of the President; instead, they have a fixed tenure and can only be removed in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. This requires a Special Majority (a majority of total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting) in both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 22, p.240. This rigorous process ensures that the CAG can audit the government’s accounts without fear of political retaliation.

In contrast, Article 76 provides for the Attorney-General, who is the highest law officer in the country Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 51, p.450. Unlike the CAG, the AG holds office during the pleasure of the President. This means the AG has no constitutional security of tenure and can be removed by the President at any time. Typically, the AG resigns when the government (Council of Ministers) changes, as they are appointed to advise that specific administration.

This distinction is crucial when we look at the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). To ensure the purity of elections, Article 324(5) specifically protects the CEC by benchmarking their removal process against a Supreme Court Judge, aligning them with the independence of the CAG rather than the political vulnerability of the AG Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 22, p.240.

Feature	Comptroller & Auditor-General (CAG)	Attorney-General (AG)
Constitutional Article	Article 148	Article 76
Tenure	Fixed (6 years or 65 years of age)	Not fixed (Pleasure of the President)
Removal Method	Same as a Supreme Court Judge (Parliamentary motion)	By the President at any time

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Parliament, p.240; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Attorney General of India, p.450

6. The Proviso Nuance: CEC vs. Other Election Commissioners (exam-level)

When we look at the Election Commission of India (ECI), there is a fascinating "legal paradox" at play. In terms of daily functioning and decision-making, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the other Election Commissioners (ECs) are strictly equals. As noted in Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Chapter: Election and Representation, p.69, the CEC presides over the body but does not hold more power than the other commissioners; all decisions are taken collectively, and each member has one vote. However, when it comes to security of tenure, the Constitution introduces a sharp distinction—often called the "Proviso Nuance" of Article 324(5).

The Chief Election Commissioner is provided with the highest level of constitutional protection to ensure the office remains insulated from political pressure. The CEC cannot be removed from office except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court. This involves a rigorous process where both Houses of Parliament must pass a motion with a special majority on the grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Chapter: Election and Representation, p.70. This ensures that a ruling party cannot simply dismiss a CEC who refuses to favor them during elections Democratic Politics-I, NCERT Class IX, Chapter: Electoral Politics, p.47.

In contrast, the other Election Commissioners (and Regional Commissioners) do not enjoy this same "judicial-style" protection. According to the proviso in Article 324(5), they can be removed by the President, but only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. This serves a dual purpose: it protects the ECs from arbitrary removal by the executive (since the CEC must agree), but it also establishes a hierarchy in tenure that doesn't exist in voting power. While the CEC's removal requires the "will of Parliament," the ECs' removal requires the "advice of the CEC."

Feature	Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)	Other Election Commissioners (ECs)
Removal Grounds	Same as a Supreme Court Judge	On the recommendation of the CEC
Authority for Removal	President (after Parliamentary motion)	President (after CEC recommendation)
Decision-making Power	Equal to ECs	Equal to CEC

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Election and Representation, p.69; Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Election and Representation, p.70; Democratic Politics-I, NCERT Class IX, Electoral Politics, p.47

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

You have just explored the constitutional safeguards designed to ensure the independence of key democratic institutions. This question tests your ability to connect those security of tenure concepts to the specific constitutional benchmark for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the CEC is protected from arbitrary removal to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. The provision explicitly states that the CEC can only be removed in the same manner and on the same grounds as A Judge of the Supreme Court, which involves a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

When reasoning through the options, you might notice a classic UPSC trap: both the Chief Justice of a High Court and the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) are also removed in the same way as a Supreme Court Judge. However, in constitutional law, the Supreme Court Judge serves as the primary standard or the "gold standard" for these high-stakes removals. Therefore, while options (B) and (C) follow the same procedure, (A) is the direct and most accurate constitutional reference point. As noted in Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), the CEC's independence is modeled specifically after the highest judiciary to ensure they function without executive pressure.

In contrast, the Attorney-General of India is a clear outlier. Unlike the CEC, the Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the President and can be removed at any time without a formal parliamentary process. Always remember to distinguish between 'independent' constitutional bodies and 'executive' legal offices when evaluating removal procedures. By identifying that the Constitution uses the Supreme Court Judge as the ultimate benchmark for the CEC, you can confidently arrive at the correct answer.