In a significant legal development on January 12, 2026, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Central Government regarding a new Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This plea specifically challenges a provision of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
While the law has been under fire since its inception, the latest challenge focuses on a specific "immunity" clause.
Key Provisions Challenged
Immunity from Prosecution: The latest PIL (heard by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant) challenges a provision that allegedly grants lifelong immunity to the CEC and ECs from civil and criminal proceedings for actions taken during their official duties.
Petitioner's Argument: The plea argues that this level of immunity is "unprecedented" and was not even granted by the Constitution's framers to Judges or other high-ranking dignitaries.
The Selection Committee (Section 7): This remains the most controversial part of the Act. It replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Current Panel: Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP).
Contention: Petitioners (including Dr. Jaya Thakur and the ADR) argue this dilutes the independence of the Election Commission by giving the executive a 2-1 majority in appointments.
The core of the dispute is the Separation of Powers. Petitioners argue that by removing the CJI and adding immunity, the government has essentially overridden a Constitution Bench judgment and compromised the "free and fair" nature of Indian elections.
The government, conversely, maintains that Article 324(2) of the Constitution gives Parliament the absolute right to make laws regarding these appointments.
The specific provision being challenged for granting "life-long immunity" is Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Section 16: The "Protection" Clause
This section states that no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing, or word committed, done, or spoken by them while performing their official duties.
The Controversy: Petitioners argue that this creates a shield of "unprecedented" immunity. While most public servants have "good faith" protection, the phrasing here is seen as being so broad that it could prevent any accountability for even serious legal violations during their tenure.
Comparison: The plea notes that the Constitution does not grant this level of absolute, life-long immunity even to Supreme Court or High Court judges.
The Petitioners & Legal Team
The current legal challenge is a "bunch of petitions" led by several prominent figures and organizations:
Dr. Jaya Thakur: A General Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee, who was the first to file a stay application against the Act.
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR): An NGO known for electoral reform litigation.
Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram & Dharmendra Singh Kushwaha: Individual activists who have also joined the challenge.
Key Legal Counsel:
The petitioners are represented by a powerhouse legal team, including:
Advocate Prashant Bhushan (representing ADR)
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh
Next Steps for the Case
The Supreme Court (Bench led by CJI Surya Kant) has issued a notice to the Centre and the Election Commission to respond to these specific claims regarding Section 16. The court has indicated it will examine whether such a provision is constitutionally valid or if it violates the principle of the "Rule of Law."
