Four questions swirl around Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s departure as the political climate around the pillar of India’s democracy, that body tasked with the conduct of free and fair elections, comes under sharp scrutiny.Gyanesh Kumar has been given an ultimatum by the Cockroach Janta Party to quit “in 48 hours”, else they would launch a nationwide movement. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has suggested that he “turns approver.”For now, Kumar has called off two public engagements in Uttar Pradesh including one meeting with Gen Z in Varanasi.If he resigns? The next in line is Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, who should be appointed by the President of India and take charge as per the law and precedent. A third Election Commissioner would need to be appointed. But Gyanesh Kumar’s term ends just before he turns 65, which is January 26, 2029, when he would need to go anyway. That process would just kick in sooner. The law provides for a civil servant, but only a person who is or has been at a rank equivalent to Secretary to the government will be eligible to be the CEC or EC. Executive overreach has had its moments in the past 12 years and for the first time in independent India’s history, we have had sudden resignations of election commissioners. Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, who would have gone on to be the CEC, quit, after repeated run-ins with his colleagues refusing the treat Narendra Modi and Adityanath as candidates and regular politicians and not wanting to issue notices for serious violations of the model code of conduct. The Pegasus spyware investigation had revealed that his phone was also under surveillance. Later, Election Commissioner Arun Goel mysteriously exited days before the schedule for the general elections in 2024 was to be announced. Goel was, in September 2024, appointed Indian ambassador to Croatia and is still serving at Zagreb.Can he be forced out of office?He can be impeached. A Chief Election Commissioner’s impeachment would be similar to that of a judge of the Supreme Court. Article 324(5) of the Indian constitution states that clearly. This means that two-thirds members of both Houses of Parliament need to demand he gets the sack. According to the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, members of both Houses of Parliament, 100 from Lok Sabha and 50 from Rajya Sabha need to sign the notice for it to be admitted. The Wire has reported how this impeachment, should it go through, would be unprecedented. But the constitution and the law do provide for it. Dr B.R. Ambedkar was concerned about the possibility of the Election Commission not being upright and feared the possibility of executive control. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly debates on June 15, 1949 could not have emphasised how crucial every rightful person’s vote is for the existence of democracy. “The House will realise that franchise is a most fundamental thing in a democracy. No person who is entitled to be brought into the electoral rolls on the grounds which we have already mentioned in our Constitution, namely, an adult of 21 years of age, should be excluded merely as a result of the prejudice of a local Government, or the whim of an officer. That would cut at the very root of democratic Government.”Can he be prosecuted? One of the main criticisms of the controversial 2023 law, which governs matters related to the Election Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act 2023, Gyanesh Kumar is treated as immune from legal action as according to Section 16 of the Act, “no Court shall entertain or continue civil or criminal proceedings.” But, this is under challenge in the apex court. On January 13, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a plea challenging the immunity. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission on this but did not stay the provision.Also, legal experts like Supreme Court lawyer Mrinal Mondal told The Tribune that if any action of any CEC or EC is found to “be beyond the call of duty or if the duty is not performed with noble intentions (or is done with malafide intentions)” then in that case, EC and CECs “can be prosecuted”. A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against Gyanesh Kumar seeking a declaration that all those decisions he took despite the other Election Commissioners’ alleged objection are illegal. The petitioner also seeks prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar and others.If Gyanesh Kumar turns approver? He could explore this. This option has been suggested by LoP Gandhi in a press conference on September 24, but it would at the outset establish that the CEC has admitted that a crime has taken place.Sections 343-345 of the BNSS, in keeping with the precedent of Section 306-308 under the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) detail how evidence provided by approvers is to be treated.The evidence of an approver is also dealt with in two provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the ‘Evidence Act’) – Section 114 Illustration (b) and Section 133. These provisions have also been mirrored in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (as Section 119 Illustration (b) and Section 138 respectively). While Section 133 of the Evidence Act states that an accomplice shall be a competent witness and a conviction shall not be illegal solely for the reason of being based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Section 114 through Illustration (b) provides that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless his testimony is corroborated in material particulars.The Supreme Court while ruling on a criminal matter on May 29, 2026, laid down principles governing corroboration of an approver’s testimony: Corroboration of an approver’s testimony in material particulars is not an inviolable rule of law; it is a rule of prudence. A court may convict on an uncorroborated approver’s testimony if it records reasons for its satisfaction that reliance on such testimony is safe. Corroborating evidence, if required, may be direct, circumstantial, or both. Where corroboration is considered necessary, it must come from independent sources. Ordinarily, the testimony of one approver cannot be used to corroborate another approver. Corroboration, when required, must render the approver’s testimony believable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not, however, required that every material circumstance against the accused be independently confirmed.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.