Today, On 16th May, The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) on why information about the total votes polled cannot be published on its website within 48 hours of polling. The query aims to enhance transparency and timely dissemination of election data. The ECI’s response to this inquiry is awaited. This development highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring electoral transparency.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Friday, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a response to a petition that requests the disclosure of the final authenticated data regarding voter turnout in all polling stations, including the number of votes cast in the Lok Sabha Elections 2024, within 48 hours of the polling.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, inquired of the ECI’s counsel, Amit Sharma, about the reasons for the perceived difficulty in publishing the voter turnout details on the ECI’s website.
Read Also: SC Notice to ECI: Plea for Full EVM votes with VVPAT Vote Tally
CJI Chandrachud inquired,
“Mr. Sharma, what obstacles are there in putting it on the website?”
The ECI counsel replied,
“It’s a time-consuming process. We need to gather extensive data,”
The Bench questioned,
“But don’t polling officers submit data on the app by evening? So shouldn’t the returning officer have the full constituency data by day’s end?”
The ECI counsel responded,
“Not immediately,”
The CJI acknowledged,
“Alright, by the following day,”
The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file its reply within a week in response to an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The application filed in light of the recent controversy surrounding the substantial increase in the final voter turnout announced by the ECI for the first two phases of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, as compared to the initial estimates announced on the voting day.
The application highlighted that the data published on April 30 showed a sharp increase (by about 5-6%) in the final voter turnout compared to the initial percentages announced by the ECI on the day of polling. This, coupled with the delay in announcing the voter turnout, led to concerns among voters and political parties about the correctness of such data.
ADR‘s main plea, which rejected by the top court on April 26, had sought directions to the ECI to tally Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) so that citizens can confirm that their vote has been ‘counted as recorded’ and ‘recorded as cast’.
In the new application, ADR sought directions to the ECI to upload scanned, legible copies of Form 17C Part-I (Account of Votes Recorded) on its website, providing constituency and polling station-wise figures of voter turnout in absolute numbers and percentage form, after each phase of polling in the ongoing 2024 elections. Additionally, ADR sought the disclosure of Part-II of Form 17C, which contains the candidate-wise result of counting after the compilation of results.
Read Also: Supreme Court Sends Notice to ECI on Free Symbol Allotment Challenge
ADR alleged that there has been a dereliction of duty on the part of the ECI in declaring election results through EVMs based on accurate and indisputable data. To support this contention, ADR submitted that the voter turnout data published by the ECI on April 30 11 days after the first phase and 4 days later for the second phase, which raised concerns and public suspicion regarding the correctness of the said data.
During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, argued that the ECI must disclose the absolute number of votes polled. The ECI counsel, Amit Sharma, opposed the plea and also questioned the locus of ADR.
The Supreme Court posted the case for consideration on May 24, giving the ECI a week to file its reply.
Sharma demanded,
“We conduct everything transparently. How is the petitioner, and not the candidate, aggrieved?”
Bhushan responded,
“Citizens are aggrieved.”
Senior Counsel Maninder Singh, representing the ECI, asserted that the assertions made in the petition are entirely unfounded, emphasizing that a previous bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta comprehensively addressed all matters pertaining to Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in a recent judicial pronouncement.
Singh stated,
“These allegations are unequivocally baseless. Justice Khanna and Datta meticulously deliberated on these issues. The esteemed court has already scrutinized the purported Manorama article, which was found to be devoid of merit. Subsequent to the filing of this petition, numerous elections have been conducted,”
However, Bhushan contended that the concerns raised in the present plea diverged from those adjudicated by the Justice Khanna bench.