Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, facing Impeachment motion by 193 Members from across both Houses of Parliament, is not only sticking to his chair, wielding formal authority but also is indulging in ‘revenge strike’ against the political party that initiated the motion. This raises a deeply distressing question as to whether moral authority in India is dead and buried!The chargesheet seeking Kumar’s removal originated from West Bengal and is signed by 130 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 members of the Rajya Sabha. The charges include “partisan and discriminatory” conduct, “mass disenfranchisement” through the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, “proven misbehaviour”, actions that “undermine public confidence”, “partisan exercise” of Constitutional functions in favour of one party, and “deliberate obstruction” of investigations into complaints of “electoral fraud”. Kumar is the first CEC in India’s history against whom such a notice has been formally submitted. The move came after a series of confrontations between the poll body and non-BJP parties, and it represents the strongest expression yet of their mistrust in his ability to conduct free and fair elections.Taken together, Gyanesh Kumar’s actions represent serious infringement of constitutional functioning and morality:Article 324, the duties of the election commission, has been distorted into an instrument of control rather than neutralityArticle 14, the right to equality, was violated through arbitrariness and selective enforcementArticle 19(1)(a), freedom of speech and expression, is undermined by placing suspicion on the voter and denying the right to constitutional expression of the vote.Basic structure principles have been weakened by institutional biasGyanesh Kumar is not guilty of mere administrative excess. He has been a constitutional fiasco. Symbolically, the impeachment motion, though not yet admitted, indicated that the ECI and its chief have lost the confidence of two-third of “We, The People.” He should not have stayed in office even for one minute and should have recused himself from conducting the ongoing elections to four state Assemblies and one Union Territory, mostly ruled by opposition parties MPs of which have moved the impeachment motion. His not doing so raises the critical question as to whether a person who has lost moral authority can exercise formal power over the public.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.A recent Newslaundry group investigative piece is titled thus: “Gyanesh Kumar: The making of India’s divisive chief election commissioner – He was the quiet executor of Article 370 and architect of the Ram Temple trust. Now, as Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar has deleted crores of voters from the rolls – and is about to face what no CEC ever has: an impeachment motion.” The article brings out the fact that throughout his career in the elite civil service he has been the agenda-man of the powers-that-be doing the bidding of his political masters without demur. It looks as if he has sold-out his soul long ago and his ruling masters found him ideal to capture the ECI essential to grab and retain political power.The question now rises. Can a person holding such a high constitutional position and swearing allegiance to it continue to wield formal authority vested in that position after losing the moral authority to hold it? To elaborate further there are essentially two kinds of authority: formal authority and moral authority. While formal authority is something you’re born or elected into, moral authority is something you have to continue to earn by how you behave, by how you build trust with your people. Every time you exercise formal authority you deplete it. Every time you exercise moral authority, leading by example, treating people with respect, you strengthen it. Formal authority is bestowed by virtue of job role, rank, position, contract. It is expected by right, even demanded, rather than given freely.Moral authority has no rank or position, or power to demand anything. Yet when freely given has arguably far more power to move people and achieve goals than any amount of formal authority. Rather than demanding, it leads by example. Rather than sacrificing others, it sacrifices itself.The power of moral authority is felt in every mind. I have a litmus test. Mention the names of two contemporary leaders of India and ask any adult who does he/she ‘respects’ more-Mohandas Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru; Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) or Morarji Desai; Mother Teresa or Indira Gandhi. Invariably the answer would be Gandhi, JP and Mother Teresa. And as we know while the other three wielded vast formal authority as prime ministers these three gained hearts through immense moral authority!This is because formal authority is a bestowed, top-down power defined by hierarchy, rules, and compliance. Conversely, moral authority is earned through integrity, trust, and leading by example. While formal authority creates structure and efficiency, moral authority fosters loyalty and sustainable performance by engaging people, not just managing tasks.Formal authority comes from titles, elections, or legal-rational structures (e.g., an Election Commissioner). Moral authority stems from personal character, trustworthiness, and ethical conduct. Formal authority uses command-and-control, policies, and sanctions. Moral authority uses influence, inspiration, and credibility. Formal authority ensures consistent, standardised action. Moral authority drives innovation, commitment, and healthy culture. Effective governance requires both: formal authority establishes necessary order, but moral authority makes leadership sustainable.Though Gyanesh Kumar has the former, he has none of the latter and therefore is unfit to head the ECI. This is because the Commission’s primary mandate under Article 324 of the Constitution is to perform the basic democratic task of “superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State.” In a democracy, which India is, formal authority is derived from legal frameworks and electoral mandates, while moral authority stems from the perceived legitimacy and fairness of those in power, often linked to upholding human rights and the will of the people.Formal authority ensures stability through laws, whereas moral authority grants the ethical right to govern. Free and fair elections are the epicentre of democracy and the authority that ‘superintendents, directs and controls’ it should have moral authority of the highest calibre.Wielding of formal authority by Kumar has crossed all limitsLet alone democracy, even for normal governance this is essential. For instance, if there was a similar chargesheet during his career in the IAS, Kumar would have faced a formal disciplinary inquiry (Rule 9) under the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. He would have been liable for major penalties including dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. Pending inquiry, he would have been placed under suspension so that he could not wield any authority or interfere in the inquiry. Does becoming the head of the Election Commission puts him on a high pedestal and give him a brazen licence to break all canons of morality and ethics?Combine this with Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, granting the CEC absolute immunity from legal action for actions/statements made during official duties, without any safeguards. This immunity potentially shields malicious or arbitrary actions from scrutiny. By placing the CEC above criminal laws for actions taken while in office, it hinders his/her accountability for electoral misconduct. This immunity is a threat to maintaining fairness in elections, as it limits the ability to challenge, or prosecute, officials for actions that affect election integrity.To boot, wielding of formal authority by Kumar has crossed all limits. As of March 2026, ahead of the assembly polls, under the direction of Kumar, ECI has undertaken a major administrative overhaul in West Bengal, resulting in the transfer and suspension of several officials. The ECI has transferred Officers-in-Charge and Inspectors-in-Charge of 173 police stations across West Bengal. Over 21 top IAS and IPS officers, including the chief secretary, home secretary, director general of police (DGP) and the Kolkata police commissioner, were transferred to ensure a “free and fair poll”. The ECI suspended four West Bengal officials (EROs and AEROs) for alleged involvement in voter list tampering (SIR).Additionally, 7 officials were suspended for alleged misconduct and dereliction of duty. Jawhar Sircar, former chief electoral officer, West Bengal and Member, Rajya Sabha termed this wielding of excessive authority by Kumar as ‘pre-meditated slaughter’!It looks as if Gyanesh Kumar has taken cover under the ‘formal’ immunity provided by his political masters and feels that he owes no moral responsibility for his actions and is not answerable to the people of India and the basic structure of its Constitution. In the event his remaining in office and wielding formal authority would be constitutional sacrilege that could sink India’s electoral democracy!M.G. Devasahayam, formerly of the IAS, is coordinator, Citizens Commission on Elections.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.