The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a provision that grants blanket legal immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners for acts performed in the discharge of their official duties.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on a plea filed by activist and advocate Arun Kumar Agrawal.

The petition challenges Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which protects the CEC and Election Commissioners from civil and criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of their official duties.

The petitioner contends that the provision grants blanket immunity without making any exception for acts not performed in good faith. He argues that such sweeping protection is inconsistent with the safeguards available to other constitutional functionaries, whose immunity generally extends only to acts done or intended to be done in good faith.

The plea points out that the Election Commission successfully conducted elections for several decades without such blanket protection, demonstrating that its functioning does not require complete immunity from legal proceedings.

It further argues that while protecting Election Commissioners from frivolous litigation is a legitimate objective, the same can be achieved through less restrictive measures, including safeguards against vexatious complaints and prior judicial scrutiny.

The petitioner has contended that Section 16 effectively takes away every civil and criminal remedy against the CEC and Election Commissioners, leaving voters, candidates and citizens without legal recourse in cases involving wrongful deletion of names from electoral rolls, mala fide actions or alleged corruption within the Commission.

The plea also highlights the legislative history of the 2023 Act, stating that the original Bill did not contain any provision granting blanket immunity to Election Commissioners. The clause was introduced through a subsequent amendment, without any specific reasons being provided for extending such sweeping protection.

According to the petitioner, the justification offered by the concerned Minister during the parliamentary debate failed to establish why such immunity was necessary for the independent functioning of the Election Commission.

The petition also points out that the amended Bill was passed by Parliament when several Opposition Members of Parliament were under suspension.

"Independence of the Election Commission does not mean that its members should be free from legal accountability. While protection from undue interference is necessary, the same cannot justify a blanket bar on legal proceedings against them," the plea states.

The petitioner has further argued that the issue assumes significance in view of alleged irregularities during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Referring to media reports published by The Indian Express, the plea highlights alleged objections raised by two Election Commissioners to certain aspects of the SIR exercise and concerns regarding the integrity of the software used in the process.

It also refers to allegations concerning the conduct of incumbent CEC Gyanesh Kumar during his earlier tenure as Secretary of the Public Works Department in Kerala.

Against this backdrop, the petitioner has questioned whether Election Commissioners should enjoy blanket immunity even in cases involving acts allegedly committed without good faith.

The plea has urged the Supreme Court to declare Section 16 of the 2023 Act unconstitutional.

Advocate Neha Rathi appeared for the petitioner.