Blanket Immunity For CEC and Election Commissioners goes further than is needed to protect the poll body’s independence, activist Arun Kumar Agrawal says in a fresh plea against Section 16 of the 2023 law, on which the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission.
New Delhi: Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which the petitioner says confers unconstitutional lifelong immunity on the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, is under fresh challenge, and the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 4, asked the Central government and the Election Commission of India to respond [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India & Anr.].
Notice was issued by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, with Advocate Neha Rathi appearing for the petitioner. The Union and the Commission have yet to file their responses, and the Court has expressed no view on the validity of the provision.
Where the petition says the law goes too far
According to the plea, protection extended to other constitutional functionaries usually covers only acts done, or intended to be done, in good faith, and Election Commissioners were treated in a similarly balanced way until Section 16 was introduced in 2023. Immunity without exception, it contends, is unconstitutional and disproportionate:
“The objective of protecting Election Commissioners from vexatious proceedings can be achieved through less restrictive measures, such as safeguards against frivolous complaints and prior judicial scrutiny. Granting blanket immunity is therefore excessive and goes beyond what is necessary to protect the independence of the Election Commission.”
A citizen left without recourse
The petition adds that the provision leaves aggrieved citizens with nowhere to turn:
“A voter whose name is wrongly deleted from the electoral roll, a candidate prejudiced by a mala fide act, and any citizen aggrieved by corruption in the functioning of the Commission are left without a remedy.”
What Section 16 provides
In terms, Section 16 shuts out civil and criminal proceedings against a current or former CEC or Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word done or said in the discharge of official duties. Supporters of such provisions say they protect constitutional functionaries from vexatious litigation that could chill independent decision-making.
Other petitions on the same provision
In October, the Court issued notice on a petition by the Association for Democratic Reforms against the same provision, and RJD MP Manoj Jha has filed a separate challenge. In these matters the Union and the ECI have not yet placed their defence of Section 16 on record.
Why the hearing matters
Several petitions are now pending, so the Court will in time have to decide where the line falls between protecting the Election Commission’s independence and preserving remedies against its members’ official acts. The replies of the Centre and the ECI will set out the case for the provision, which the 2023 law presents as a safeguard for the poll body.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India & Anr. (title as per petition; verify)
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: November 4, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Neha Rathi for the petitioner