Former Election Commissioner Questions Legal Immunity for CECs
Former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa raised serious concerns on Friday about the legal protection granted to serving and former chief election commissioners and election commissioners under a new law. He described this provision as offering "extraordinary protection" that he finds troubling for a democracy.
Unprecedented Legal Shield
Speaking on the sidelines of a panel discussion about accountability for the Election Commission, Lavasa made his position clear. "I am not aware of any comparable protection available to other public institutions or public servants," he stated firmly. The former commissioner emphasized that accountability remains paramount in any democratic system.
"In a democracy, accountability is paramount, and therefore this kind of legal shield, in my view, should not exist," Lavasa explained. He further argued that even when officials make correct decisions, those decisions should still face legal scrutiny. "Even if a right decision has been taken, it must still stand the test of being defended before a court of law," he added.
Supreme Court to Examine Challenge
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a petition challenging this immunity provision under the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Appointment Act of 2023. The petition argues that the law gives "unprecedented, unbridled power" to election commissioners by providing them with permanent, blanket immunity from both civil and criminal proceedings.
This immunity applies even in cases where officials might have allegedly misused their office. Clause 16 of the legislation specifically states that no court can entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceedings against current or former chief election commissioners or election commissioners. This protection covers any act, deed, or statement made while performing official duties.
Lavasa's Background and Stance
Ashok Lavasa served as one of two election commissioners from January 2018 until his resignation in August 2020, when he joined the Asian Development Bank. He gained national attention during the 2019 Lok Sabha election campaign when he recorded a dissenting opinion in a panel decision regarding complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah.
His recent comments continue his pattern of speaking out on matters of electoral integrity and institutional accountability. The debate over this legal shield comes at a time when many are examining how democratic institutions maintain both independence and accountability.
The former commissioner's critique highlights ongoing tensions between protecting election officials from undue harassment and ensuring they remain answerable for their actions. As the Supreme Court prepares to examine this issue, Lavasa's perspective adds weight to concerns about creating exceptions that might undermine democratic principles.
