SC issues notice on plea against law to provide immunity to CEC, ECs

The provision says that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against any person who is or was a Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for any act, thing or word, committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or function”.

Appearing for Lok Prahari, its general secretary S N Shukla said Parliament had given immunity to the CEC and the ECs, which the makers of the Constitution did not grant even to the President, Governors or judges.

He said that while initiating the debate on the Bill, the minister had said it is being brought under Article 324(2) of the Constitution. But clause 2 is only about the appointment process of the CEC and ECs and has nothing to do with their service conditions, Shukla submitted, adding “therefore, it could not be included deceptively in the Bill”.

As the bench expressed inclination to issue notice, Shukla also urged the court to stay the operation of the provision in the meanwhile in view of the “damage to the process of free and fair elections”.

But the CJI said, “These provisions are not stayed like this. It’s not that you are suffering on account of anything. We are examining only as you have filed a PIL whether this kind of immunity came be granted in view of our constitutional scheme or not.”

The plea also said that the provision “gives unprecedented, unbridled power to the CEC and ECs by providing them complete blanket permanent immunity for life from any civil and even criminal proceedings for their wrongdoings in gross misuse of their office …”

It said that “the impugned provision disturbs level playing field by giving the CEC and ECs a free hand to misuse their position for or against a political party/ candidate or the Government as alleged of late, not entirely without basis…”.

The plea said that the “intervention of this Hon’ble Court is extremely necessary for ensuring enforcement of the Rule of Law and protecting proper functioning and future of democracy in the country”.