Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Reviews Immunity for India's Election Commissioners Amid Voter-Roll Controversy
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court—Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana—issued notices to the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions challenging Section 16 of the *Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023*. The provision grants lifetime immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) for acts performed in official duties. The bench is also hearing petitions alleging large-scale deletions of voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a plea contesting the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.
Background & Context
- Section 16 was added after the Bill’s introduction on August 10 2023; it passed the Rajya Sabha on December 12 2023, the Lok Sabha on December 21 2023, and received presidential assent on December 28 2023.
- Former Chief Election Commissioners warned the Prime Minister on September 16 2023 that the amendment could erode the EC’s standing.
- The SIR, launched on June 24 2025, aims to clean electoral rolls but has faced criticism for deletions.
Data & Statistics
- Opposition petitions claim the SIR has deleted roughly 13 crore (? 130 million) voter records nationwide.
- Booth-wise publication of names, reasons and demographic breakdowns of deleted voters;
- A mechanism to restore eligible voters;
- Suspension of the SIR pending judicial review.
Official Statements & Responses
- Chief Justice Surya Kant wrote to opposition leaders on October 11 that related petitions would be heard, and later issued notice to the ECI and CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the notice does not amount to condoning any protest conduct.
- The Election Commission has not filed a counter-affidavit.
Criticism & Opposition
- Transparency-rights activist Anjali Bhardwaj says the immunity “is dangerous in a democracy” and exceeds protections for the President, Governors and judges.
- Retired IAS officer S.N. Shukla argues the provision is “unconstitutional because the Constitution provides only limited immunity to the President and the Governors.”
- Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi contends the SIR infringes the constitutional right to vote and seeks full disclosure of EC records.
- Congress MP Shashi Tharoor calls the immunity “unprecedented, unbridled power” and urges the CEC’s resignation.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This protection is perhaps only for the President. It does not apply even to judges.” — Anjali Bhardwaj
- “I'd better step down in the interests of our democracy.” — Shashi Tharoor
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The Supreme Court has not stayed Section 16, leaving the immunity provision operative, while petitions argue it is unconstitutional.
- The Election Commission has not responded to the notices, and no official data confirming the exact number of deletions has been released.
What’s Next
- The bench will hear the SIR-related petition on October 15 2026 and the immunity challenge on November 6 2026. Interim directions on the SIR and Jantar Mantar de-notification may be issued pending final determination.