A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana sought the response of the Union and the Election Commission on ADR's plea.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission on a petition filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

A provision in the 2023 law grants immunity to the chief election commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (ECs) from civil and criminal proceedings for acts performed in the discharge of their official duties.

Section 16 of the 2023 statute explicitly bars courts from entertaining or continuing any civil or criminal proceedings against a serving or former Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner for any act, deed, or statement executed during the discharge or purported discharge of official duties.

The petition, filed by the non-governmental organisation Association for Democratic Reforms, challenges that legal provision.

Petitioners argue that granting absolute legal protection shields electoral officials from democratic accountability, creating an unconstitutional shield against judicial scrutiny even in cases of alleged misconduct or misuse of office.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana sought the response of the Union and the Election Commission on ADR's challenge, according to Live Law.

The petition seeks a declaration that Section 16 of the CEC Act is unconstitutional, void and inoperative as violative of Articles 14 and 21 and the basic structure of the Constitution. It further seeks revival of proceedings against the present and past CEC and Election Commissioners, which came to an end as Section 16 of the CEC Act came into effect.

The petitioner further points out that Section 16 was not originally part of the Bill introduced. It was inserted and voted upon at a time when a substantial number of Members of Parliament from Opposition were under suspension. Thus, its insertion in the Act suffers impropriety, according to Live Law.