New Delhi, Nov. 4 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to consider challenges to a 2023 law that grants the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) sweeping protection from civil and criminal prosecution for acts performed in their official capacity.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Centre, seeking its response within four weeks. The petitions, filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha and activist Arun Agrawal, will be heard alongside an existing case concerning the same issue on December 18.
At the heart of the legal challenge is Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision prevents courts from initiating or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against serving or former election commissioners for anything they have done, said or purportedly done while discharging their official functions.
Jha has argued that the provision grants election commissioners lifelong immunity, including in cases involving corruption, criminal conduct or malicious intent. He contended that such protection exceeds the safeguards available to the President, parliamentarians and judges.
Pointing to Articles 361, 105 and 194, which provide specific protections to other constitutional functionaries, Jha said Article 324 contains no comparable immunity for the Election Commission. He argued that the constitutional protection against arbitrary removal of election commissioners does not extend to immunity from prosecution.
Agrawal has similarly challenged the provision, arguing that its broad wording could protect officials even in cases involving corruption, forgery and actions outside their lawful authority. He also questioned the absence of any requirement that the conduct be undertaken in good faith.
His petition contends that protecting the Election Commission's independence does not justify placing its members beyond judicial scrutiny. It argues that safeguards against frivolous complaints and preliminary judicial scrutiny would offer adequate protection without removing the possibility of legal action altogether.
Agrawal further argued that the provision could leave voters and candidates without legal remedies in cases involving wrongful deletion of names from electoral rolls, alleged misconduct or corruption within the Election Commission.
The Supreme Court will examine the constitutional validity of the provision after receiving the Centre's response.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.