Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Challenging Lifetime Immunity For CEC Under Section 16 Of 2023 Act; CJI Discourages Multiplicity Of Litigation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on petitions filed by Rashtriya Janata Dal Member of Parliament Manoj Kumar Jha and activist-advocate Arun Agrawal challenging 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 grants civil and criminal immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners for acts done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duties.

What Does Section 16 Of The 2023 Act Provide?

Section 16 bars courts from entertaining or continuing any civil or criminal proceeding against a person who is or has been a CEC or Election Commissioner for any act, thing, or word committed, done, or spoken in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties. The immunity operates for the lifetime of the office-holder.

Constitutional Challenge And Grounds Of Attack

The petitions contend that Section 16 is unconstitutional and void for violating Articles 14, 21, 32, 129, 215, 226, and 324 of the Constitution. Jha's plea, drafted by Advocate Fauzia Shakil, terms the provision a fraud on the Constitution. It argues that the statute confers unprecedented, lifelong immunity on Election Commissioners through ordinary legislation, a protection wider than that available to the President, Governors, legislators, or judges of constitutional courts. The petition submits that Article 324 does not contemplate such insulation and that Parliament cannot exercise its power to prescribe conditions of service to place Election Commissioners beyond judicial scrutiny for their lifetime.

Jha's petition further alleges that Section 16 was introduced through an official amendment shortly before the passage of the 2023 legislation without adequate scrutiny or public consultation. It highlights that the provision substantially replicates the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, but omits the safeguards in that statute which preserve the power of constitutional courts and the government to initiate proceedings against judges. Agrawal's petition, argued by Advocate Neha Rathi, similarly argues that the Constitution does not grant absolute immunity even to the President, legislators, or constitutional court judges. It contends that the tenure of Election Commissioners is already constitutionally protected and that there is no justification for granting blanket immunity from accountability, which deprives voters, candidates, and citizens of civil and criminal remedies for alleged wrongdoing.

Bench Observations On Multiplicity Of Petitions

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Mohana issued notice and tagged the fresh petitions with the pending challenge filed by NGO Lok Prahari. The matters have been listed for hearing on December 18.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India discouraged the filing of multiple petitions raising substantially similar issues. The CJI observed that repeated filings delay the completion of pleadings and divert the Court's attention from the principal challenge. Our only request is that now stop filing petitions otherwise pleadings will never get complete. No need to file more cases because all the points are exhaustively taken. We will never get a chance to concentrate on the main issue, the CJI remarked. The bench clarified that if a genuinely important point had been missed in the existing petition, a fresh petition could be considered. However, the CJI suggested that seeking impleadment in the pending proceedings and raising the additional issue could be an alternative. We will not stop anyone but repeating the same... We hope bar members can be persuaded to avoid that, otherwise it will delay the main issue, the CJI stated.

Pending Challenges And Comparative Immunity Framework

The Supreme Court is already seized of challenges to Section 16 filed by Lok Prahari and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). In January 2026, the Court issued notice on Lok Prahari's petition, which contends that such lifelong immunity could not have been granted within the constitutional scheme. Lok Prahari has argued that Article 324 does not elevate the Election Commission to a position beyond the law and that the impugned provision grants the CEC and Election Commissioners unprecedented immunity not even available to the President and Governors.

The Court's decision to consolidate the matters ensures that the constitutional challenge to the scope of parliamentary power under Article 324 and the doctrine of equality before law will be adjudicated comprehensively on December 18.