SC seeks Centre’s response on CEC, EC immunity:Petitioner questions clause, cites SIR concerns

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to respond to a petition challenging a law that shields the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the other Election Commissioners from legal action for anything done in the course of their duties. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on the petition filed by the activist and lawyer Arun Kumar Agrawal. SC seeks Centre, ECI response to plea challenging blanket immunity for Election Commissioners The plea seeks to have Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, declared unconstitutional. What does Section 16 provide? The petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision gives the CEC and Election Commissioners lifelong protection from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in discharging their official duties. Agrawal argues that protection for other constitutional office-holders usually covers only acts done, or intended to be done, in good faith. He says the same balanced approach applied to Election Commissioners until Section 16 was introduced by the 2023 Act. Under Section 16, he says, the immunity is blanket and has no exceptions, which makes it “unconstitutional, disproportionate and liable to be struck down”. Petitioner questions how the immunity clause was introduced The plea also traces the provision’s introduction during the legislative process. According to Agrawal, the original Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill contained no clause granting blanket immunity. A subsequent amendment proposed the protection, but did not provide reasons for introducing it, the petition states. The petitioner has stressed that the independence of the Election Commission should not be confused with freedom from legal scrutiny. While safeguards against undue interference are necessary, he argues, they cannot justify a blanket prohibition on proceedings against its members. How the clause came into the Bill The petitioner says the Bill as first drafted contained no such immunity. A later amendment added the clause without giving any reasons, he says, and the final version was passed by Parliament while a large number of opposition MPs were under suspension. Plea cites SIR concerns and allegations against CEC The challenge also comes amid allegations of irregularities in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The petition cites reports in The Indian Express about objections allegedly raised by two Election Commissioners to aspects of the exercise, as well as concerns over the integrity of the software being used to conduct the revision. It also raises questions about the conduct of the incumbent CEC, Gyanesh Kumar, referring to allegations relating to his earlier tenure as Secretary of the Public Works Department in the Government of Kerala. Against this backdrop, Agrawal has questioned whether Election Commissioners should enjoy blanket legal protection even in cases involving alleged actions that were not carried out in good faith. The petition asks the Supreme Court to strike down Section 16 of the 2023 Act as unconstitutional.