The Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission of India on Tuesday in response to a public interest litigation questioning the statutory protections afforded to the Chief Election Commissioner and fellow Election Commissioners. A three-judge panel comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana called on both the Union government and the Election Commission to submit their responses to a petition brought forward by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

At issue in the petition is Section 16 of the 2023 legislation governing how the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are appointed, how their service conditions are set, and how long they may hold office. Under this provision, anyone who holds or has held one of these offices retains protection from legal action for anything said, written, or done in the course of — or purportedly in the course of — their official role.

The provision states that, regardless of what any other applicable law may specify, no court may initiate or maintain civil or criminal proceedings against a current or former Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner for any act, statement, or conduct carried out — or purportedly carried out — in the exercise of official duties. ADR contends that this clause runs contrary to Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

The argument put forward holds that protections of such breadth erode the mechanisms of accountability and place those holding constitutional office outside the reach of laws that apply to everyone else. The filing further contends that the provision stands to place alleged abuses of executive authority and acts of corruption beyond the reach of court review.

Court records show the proceeding is provisionally scheduled to resume on 2 November. The filing arrives at a moment when judicial attention has turned toward the legal framework that governs the electoral body — covering the process by which its members are chosen, the scope of authority it holds, and the degree to which its rulings remain free from outside influence.

A separate petition prompted the Supreme Court, on 5 October, to send notices to the Centre, the Election Commission of India, and all three Election Commissioners. At the heart of that petition lies a constitutional question: whether authority vested in a multi-member body can be unilaterally invoked — or spoken for — by CEC Gyanesh Kumar acting alone.

Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Vikas Singh contended that the panel had operated outside the boundaries set by the relevant statutory framework. Under Article 324, he contended, constitutional authority over electoral oversight — encompassing superintendence, direction, and control — vests in the Election Commission of India as a collective body rather than in the Chief Election Commissioner acting unilaterally. That petition came before the very same panel of judges.

A separate legal challenge targets the 2023 legislation's decision to leave the Chief Justice of India off the panel responsible for appointments. A two-judge panel that convened on 23 September returned a divided ruling on the question of whether the petitions warranted referral to a Constitution Bench. A referral application brought before Justice Dipankar Datta was turned down.

Sharma J. found that the petition raised a constitutional question of sufficient weight to warrant reference to a bench of greater strength. A referral of the case papers to CJI Surya Kant was ordered by the bench, leaving it to him to decide whether a Constitution Bench ought to be convened to assess the validity of the Act.

Three seats make up the selection panel as prescribed by statute — one held by the Prime Minister, another by whichever leader heads the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a third filled by a Cabinet minister of the Prime Minister's choosing. That framework superseded the provisional arrangement the Supreme Court had put in place through its March 2023 ruling in Anoop Baranwal. The petition before the Supreme Court named the Chief Justice of India alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition as respondents on behalf of the Union of India.