SC Addresses Plea Against Law Granting Immunity to Election Commissioners
Supreme Court examines plea challenging legal immunity for Election Commissioners.
Photo by Chad Stembridge
Key Facts
SC issued notice: Plea against EC immunity
Immunity challenged: CEC and ECs
Concerns: Accountability and misuse of power
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Constitutional bodies, election-related issues
Connects to syllabus topics on constitutional bodies, separation of powers, judicial review
Potential question types: Statement-based, analytical questions on ECI's role and independence
Visual Insights
Evolution of Laws Related to Election Commission's Functioning
This timeline highlights key events and legislation shaping the powers and immunity of the Election Commission of India, culminating in the recent plea against the law granting immunity to Election Commissioners.
The Election Commission's powers and independence have been shaped by various laws and judicial pronouncements over the years. The current plea highlights ongoing concerns about balancing immunity with accountability.
- 1950Election Commission of India established under Article 324
- 1951Representation of the People Act, 1951 enacted, governing the conduct of elections
- 1985Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 enacted, granting immunity to judicial officers
- 1991Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 enacted
- 2015Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of free and fair elections in various judgments.
- 2018Debate intensifies on the appointment process and independence of the Election Commission.
- 2023Supreme Court hears petitions regarding the appointment process of CEC and ECs.
- 2026SC addresses plea against law granting immunity to Election Commissioners, raising concerns about accountability.
More Information
Background
The Election Commission of India (ECI) was established on January 25, 1950, a day before India became a Republic. The initial constitutional provisions regarding the ECI were laid out in Articles 324 to 329 of the Indian Constitution. Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to the Parliament, State Legislatures, the office of President of India, and the office of Vice-President of India in the ECI.
Initially, the ECI was a single-member body, but after the Election Commissioner Amendment Act of 1989, it became a multi-member body consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. The rationale behind this change was to ensure a more democratic and balanced decision-making process within the commission. Over the years, the powers and responsibilities of the ECI have expanded significantly, particularly in the context of electoral reforms and ensuring free and fair elections.
Latest Developments
In recent years, there has been increased scrutiny of the Election Commission's autonomy and impartiality, particularly concerning the appointment process of Election Commissioners. The Supreme Court has been actively involved in addressing concerns related to the transparency and independence of the ECI. The introduction of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems and the increased use of technology in elections have also been significant developments.
Furthermore, debates around electoral bonds and their impact on election funding have put the ECI's regulatory role under the spotlight. Looking ahead, there is an expectation that the ECI will continue to evolve its practices to address emerging challenges such as disinformation campaigns and the influence of social media on elections.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India (ECI): 1. The Constitution explicitly defines the qualifications for the Election Commissioners. 2. The service conditions and tenure of the Election Commissioners are determined by the President. 3. The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect because the Constitution does not explicitly define the qualifications for the Election Commissioners. Statement 2 is incorrect because the service conditions are determined by an Act of Parliament. Statement 3 is correct as per Article 324(5) of the Constitution.
2. In the context of the recent plea against the law granting immunity to Election Commissioners, which of the following statements accurately reflects the constitutional provisions regarding the ECI?
- A.The Constitution explicitly grants immunity from legal proceedings to Election Commissioners for actions taken in their official capacity.
- B.The Constitution is silent on the matter of immunity for Election Commissioners, leaving it to be determined by parliamentary law.
- C.The Constitution provides for limited immunity to Election Commissioners, subject to judicial review.
- D.The Constitution prohibits any form of immunity for Election Commissioners to ensure accountability.
Show Answer
Answer: B
The Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of immunity for Election Commissioners. This matter is left to be determined by parliamentary law, which is now being challenged in the Supreme Court.
3. Which of the following committees/commissions has NOT made recommendations related to electoral reforms in India?
- A.Tarkunde Committee
- B.Dinesh Goswami Committee
- C.Indrajit Gupta Committee
- D.Y.V. Reddy Committee
Show Answer
Answer: D
The Tarkunde Committee, Dinesh Goswami Committee, and Indrajit Gupta Committee are all associated with recommendations for electoral reforms in India. The Y.V. Reddy Committee was primarily focused on reviewing the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act.