SUPREME COURT SEEKS CENTRE’S RESPONSE TO CHALLENGE AGAINST LIFELONG LEGAL IMMUNITY FOR ELECTION COMMISSIONERS
November 4, 2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of a provision granting sweeping legal immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), issuing notice to the Centre and seeking its response within four weeks.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued the notice while hearing petitions filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha and activist Arun Agrawal. The court directed that the matter be tagged with another pending petition concerning the same legal issue and scheduled the next hearing for December 18.
The petitions challenge 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 entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against serving or former election commissioners for acts, words or actions undertaken while discharging, or purportedly discharging, their official duties.
CHALLENGE TO THE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY
In his petition, Manoj Jha argued that Section 16 provides constitutional functionaries with protection extending beyond the safeguards available to several other high-ranking public officials. He contended that the provision effectively grants election commissioners lifelong immunity from prosecution for actions associated with their official responsibilities, without clearly excluding allegations involving corruption, criminal misconduct or bad faith.
Jha argued that the Constitution expressly provides specific protections to certain constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors under Article 361, but does not establish comparable immunity for the Election Commission under Article 324.
His petition further maintained that the constitutional protection given to the Chief Election Commissioner against arbitrary removal was intended to preserve institutional independence, not to place the office-holder beyond the reach of ordinary criminal and civil law.
PETITIONER RAISES CONCERNS OVER CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Arun Agrawal's petition similarly questioned the breadth of Section 16, arguing that its language could prevent prosecution for serious offences, including corruption and forgery.
He particularly objected to the expressions 'is or was' and 'purporting to act', arguing that they could extend protection even after an election commissioner leaves office and cover actions that may fall outside lawful official authority.
Agrawal maintained that protecting election commissioners from politically motivated or frivolous litigation was a legitimate objective, but granting blanket immunity was disproportionate. He suggested that alternative safeguards, including prior judicial scrutiny and mechanisms to reject baseless complaints, could protect institutional independence without eliminating legal accountability.
The petition also highlighted the potential consequences for citizens and electoral participants, arguing that voters whose names are wrongly removed from electoral rolls, candidates affected by allegedly malicious decisions and citizens reporting corruption could be left without effective legal remedies.
The Supreme Court's decision to seek the Centre's response marks the beginning of judicial examination of the contested provision. The court has not yet ruled on its constitutional validity, and Section 16 remains in force pending further proceedings.
