The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Central government and the Election Commission on a public interest litigation challenging a key provision in the 2023 law that grants lifelong immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) from civil or criminal proceedings for actions taken during their official duties. This move comes amid growing concerns about the potential for unchecked power in the electoral body, especially as it could affect the fairness of elections, and the court has agreed to examine the law's validity without staying its operation for now.
What is the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023?
Background of the Act: This law was introduced and passed in December 2023 to regulate the appointment, salary, and service conditions of the CEC and ECs, filling a gap left by the absence of specific legislation under Article 324 of the Constitution.
Key Provisions: It sets up a selection committee headed by the Prime Minister, including the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, for recommending appointments to the President.
Tenure and Salary: CEC and ECs serve for six years or until age 65, with salaries equivalent to a Supreme Court judge, and the Act includes safeguards against arbitrary removal.
Purpose: The government stated it aims to ensure the Election Commission's independence while aligning with parliamentary sovereignty.
What is the Specific Provision Being Challenged in the Plea?
Section 16 Details: This section states that no court shall entertain any civil or criminal proceedings against the CEC, ECs, or any ECI officer for acts done in good faith under the Act, providing lifelong protection even after leaving office.
Scope of Immunity: It covers actions "committed, done or spoken" in official capacity, meaning complaints or lawsuits cannot be filed if the acts were intended to fulfill duties.
Comparison with Other Laws: Similar protections exist in laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, but the plea argues this is broader and not justified for election officials.
Why Was This Immunity Included in the 2023 Act?
Government's Rationale: The provision aims to protect election officials from frivolous lawsuits that could hinder bold decision-making during polls, ensuring smooth conduct without fear of personal liability.
Historical Context: Before this Act, CEC and ECs had limited protections under general laws, but the new law strengthens them to match the ECI's constitutional role in free and fair elections.
Link to Article 324: The Act draws from the Constitution's Article 324, which empowers the ECI to supervise elections, arguing immunity is needed to maintain impartiality amid political pressures.
What Are the Main Arguments in the Plea Against This Immunity?
Unprecedented Power: The petitioner claims it gives "blanket permanent immunity" for life, allowing potential misuse without accountability, which could favor or harm political parties.
Violation of Constitutional Principles: It argues Parliament cannot grant such protection when the Constitution does not provide it to higher authorities like the President (under Article 361) or judges, who have limited immunity.
Impact on Democracy: The plea states it disturbs the "level playing field" in elections, as unchecked actions might undermine public trust in the ECI.
Deceptive Inclusion: The immunity was added under a Bill focused on appointments, not service conditions, which the petitioner calls misleading.
What Was the Supreme Court's Response During the Hearing?
Notice Issued: The bench agreed to examine the plea, issuing notices to the Centre and ECI for responses, indicating the court's interest in reviewing the law's validity.
No Interim Stay: The court declined to pause the provision, noting the petitioner was not personally affected and such stays are not granted routinely.
Broader Concerns: The CJI emphasized checking if this immunity fits within India's constitutional scheme, especially for an independent body like the ECI.
What is the Background of the Election Commission's Structure and Independence?
Constitutional Foundation: Article 324 establishes the ECI as a multi-member body with the CEC and ECs, responsible for conducting free and fair elections to Parliament and state legislatures.
Evolution Over Time: Initially single-member, it became multi-member in 1989; the 2023 Act fixes up to two ECs besides the CEC, with equal voting powers.
Safeguards for Independence: CEC can only be removed like a Supreme Court judge (impeachment), while ECs need presidential recommendation; the Act aims to codify this.
Past Supreme Court Interventions: In the 2023 Anoop Baranwal case, the court ruled for a committee including the CJI for appointments to ensure neutrality until a law was made.
Why is the Appointment Process Also Under Challenge in Related Pleas?
Exclusion of CJI: The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister in the selection panel, which critics say gives the executive undue influence.
Potential Bias: This could compromise the ECI's independence, as the PM and nominated minister might dominate, affecting fair elections.
Court's Earlier Directive: The Supreme Court had mandated CJI inclusion to prevent executive overreach, but the new law overrides this.
What Are the Potential Implications of This Case for India's Electoral System?
Strengthening Accountability: If struck down, it could ensure election officials face scrutiny for misconduct, boosting public confidence.
Risk to Efficiency: Upholding immunity might protect genuine actions but raise fears of abuse in a politically charged environment.
Broader Democratic Impact: The verdict could influence how independent institutions like the ECI balance power and responsibility under the Constitution.
Precedents: Similar challenges have led to reforms, like in the NJAC case where judicial appointments were protected from executive interference.
© 2026 Gaining Sun. All rights reserved.