A law passed by the Modi government grants Election Commissioners immunity that even the President and Prime Minister do not enjoy after leaving office — that is the explosive charge RJD leader and Bihar Leader of the Opposition Tejashwi Yadav levelled on Wednesday, 30 September 2026, in a sharp attack on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The immunity claim at the centre of the attack

Yadav alleged that the 2023 law ensures Election Commissioners can never be jailed, arrested, or even questioned — not just while in office, but for the rest of their lives. In his words: 'yeh visheshadhikar toh pad se hatne ke baad desh ke Rashtrapati, Pradhanmantri, Rajyapal aur judge ke paas bhi nahin hai' ('this privilege is not available even to the President, Prime Minister, Governor or judge after they leave office'). It is a pointed constitutional comparison — and a politically loaded one.

Research flagged by policy analysts notes that the 2023 Act primarily addresses appointment procedures, conditions of service and tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners, replacing the earlier 1991 Act. The specific lifetime immunity from arrest or investigation that Yadav describes is not reflected in the documented provisions of the 2023 Act as available in the public record. NationPress is not in a position to independently verify this claim.

Rigged EVMs and 'butchers of democracy' — the full charge sheet

Yadav did not stop at the immunity argument. He alleged that the law was crafted specifically to enable what he called electoral theft: manipulation and swapping of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), looting of the state treasury on polling day, deletion of opposition voters' names from rolls, and addition of fraudulent BJP voters. He called the ruling dispensation 'loktantra ke kasai' — 'butchers of democracy' — and accused them of being 'killers of the Constitution built by Baba Saheb Ambedkar.'

The invocation of B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, is deliberate political framing. Opposition parties have repeatedly used Ambedkar's legacy as a constitutional touchstone in debates over institutional autonomy, and Yadav's post fits squarely into that pattern.

The 2023 Act and the Supreme Court backdrop

The legislation Yadav targets has a contested history. In 2023, the Supreme Court of India directed that CEC appointments be made by a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a nominated member — pending formal legislation. The government responded with the 2023 Act, which formalised the appointment process but replaced the court-mandated panel with a committee that critics argued tilted executive control over the body. Opposition parties at the time called it an attempt to weaken the Election Commission of India's independence under Article 324 of the Constitution.

EVM integrity has been a recurring flashpoint in Indian electoral politics, with opposition parties periodically demanding a return to paper ballots or enhanced audits. The Election Commission and successive governments have defended EVM security. No court has found EVMs to have been manipulated in any Indian election.

Bihar's opposition voice and the stakes ahead

Yadav's post arrives as Bihar — and India broadly — eyes a packed electoral calendar. As Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, he commands one of the most prominent opposition platforms in the Hindi heartland. Attacks on electoral machinery tend to serve a dual purpose: mobilising the base and building a pre-emptive narrative ahead of results that may be contested.

Whether this specific immunity provision exists in law as Yadav describes it will likely face scrutiny in parliament and in courts. The louder question his post forces onto the table is one that Indian democracy has wrestled with for decades: who watches the watchers of elections?