Today, 18th March, The Supreme Court has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider a request to make booth-wise vote details and Form 17C copies public. The court postponed the hearing and stated that the petitioners are free to submit their request to the ECI.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court instructed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to review a plea requesting the disclosure of final authenticated data on voter turnout from all polling stations within 48 hours of voting.
The plea, submitted by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, seeks directions for the ECI to upload scanned and legible copies of Form 17C Part-I (which records votes) on its website.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan stated that the petitioners are free to submit a representation to the ECI within ten days.
This announcement followed Senior Advocate Maninder Singh’s remarks, representing the ECI, that a new Election Commissioner has been appointed, and the petitioners can approach him to address their concerns.
Consequently, the court postponed the hearing and scheduled the case for consideration on July 28.
The court ordered,
“List this on the week commencing July 28. Meanwhile, counsel for ECI stated that the petitioners may file a representation with the ECI, which will hear them and inform them in advance. Let the representation be made within 10 days,”
The application by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) was submitted in May 2024 amid controversy over a significant increase in the final voter turnout figures announced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for the initial two phases of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, compared to the preliminary estimates provided on voting day.
This application was part of an ongoing case from 2019.
The ADR noted that the data released on April 30 indicated a sharp rise of approximately 5-6% in the final voter turnout compared to the initial figures announced by the ECI on election day.
This discrepancy, along with the delay in releasing the turnout data, has raised concerns among both voters and political parties regarding the accuracy of the figures, as argued in the application.
The request called for the ECI to upload scanned and legible copies of Form 17C Part-I (Account of Votes Recorded) on its website.
The data should be made available after each phase of polling during the ongoing 2024 elections, detailing constituency and polling station-wise voter turnout figures in both absolute numbers and percentages, as stated in the application.
Additionally, ADR requested the disclosure of Part II of Form 17C, which contains the candidate-wise results of the counting process once the results have been compiled.
ADR has alleged that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has failed in its duty to declare election results from Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) using accurate and indisputable data.
In response to the plea, the ECI submitted an affidavit asserting that there is no legal entitlement to the publication of final authenticated voter turnout data for all polling stations. The poll body argued that disclosing this data based on Form 17C (which records votes at each polling station) could confuse voters, as it would also include postal ballot counts.
During the hearing today, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, pointed out a significant discrepancy between the EVM counts and the actual number of voters who cast their ballots. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Mahua Moitra, expressed similar concerns.
He stated,
“How did the polling figure of 10 at the end of the day become 50 the next morning? This needs to be explained. There is a discrepancy between the final list published and the actual number of voters,”
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the ECI, noted,
“There is now a new Chief Election Commissioner. The petitioner can meet him, and this may be addressed.”
The Chief Justice of India remarked,
“We cannot delve into this today,”
Singhvi argued,
“Why can’t the EC simply scan and provide Part II of Form 17C? They seem to want to avoid the broader picture and analysis,”
Bhushan pressed,
“Shouldn’t citizens have access to this information? Are they not entitled to know?”
The Chief Justice responded before postponing the hearing,
“The ECI will hear you,”
Case Title: MAHUA MOITRA Vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
W.P.(C) No. 1389/2019
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
