RJD MP Manoj Jha has moved the Supreme Court challenging the lifelong immunity given to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under Section 16 of the 2023 Act, calling it a fraud on the Constitution.
New Delhi: Rashtriya Janata Dal Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha has approached the Supreme Court with a petition challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which gives the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners lifelong immunity from court proceedings [Manoj Jha v. Union of India].
The petition has not yet been listed, and the bench and case number are not available. The case title is a working title and will be corrected once the petition is on the Court’s record.
The petitioner’s contention
Mr. Jha calls the provision a fraud on the Constitution. He points out that a sitting Supreme Court judge can be prosecuted with sanction, but a retired Election Commissioner cannot. These are the petitioner’s contentions and the Court has not expressed a view on them.
How the matter reached here
Section 16 of the 2023 Act provides that, notwithstanding anything in any other law, no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word done or spoken in the discharge of official duty. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and the Election Commission of India on a challenge to the provision in January 2026, as covered by LawChakra, and on October 6 it remarked that the immunity is perhaps available only to the President and not even to judges.
On October 13, 2026, the Court issued notice to the Union and the Election Commission on a petition by the Association for Democratic Reforms, which seeks a declaration that Section 16 is unconstitutional and the revival of proceedings that ended when the provision took effect. The Court directed that petition to be tagged with a pending petition by Lok Prahari challenging the same immunity.
ADR’s petition argues that the immunity violates Articles 14 and 21 and the basic structure, that it was added through an amendment circulated in December 2023 and passed without debate, and that no comparable lifelong immunity exists for others. The Union and the Election Commission have yet to respond in court, and the Court has made no final ruling on the provision.
The legal position
The challenge turns on whether a blanket, lifelong bar on proceedings against holders of constitutional office can be reconciled with equality before the law under Article 14 and with the Constitution’s basic structure. The petitions before the Court argue that it cannot. The text of Section 16 limits the immunity to acts, things or words done or spoken in the discharge of official duty, and the Union and the Election Commission are yet to state their position on whether the provision is needed to protect the independence of the office.
Why the petition matters
With ADR’s petition, the Lok Prahari petition and now Mr. Jha’s petition all directed at the same provision, the Supreme Court is likely to be asked to decide the constitutional validity of Section 16 in a single exercise. Whether the Court tags Mr. Jha’s petition with the others, and what the Union and the Election Commission say in response, will shape how that question is argued.
Case Title: Manoj Jha v. Union of India (working title)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Filing: Reported October 15, 2026
