In his petition, Jairam Ramesh argued that the Election Commission, as a Constitutional body responsible for ensuring free and fair elections, should not be allowed to unilaterally suggest such an important amendment to the law without consulting the public.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday (15th Jan) issued a notice to the Central Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding a petition filed by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh.
The petition challenges the recent amendments made to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which limit citizens’ rights to access election-related records.
The petition was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar.
The Court has asked both the Central Government and the ECI to respond to the petition and submit their replies before the week starting on March 17.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Jairam Ramesh, questioned the reasoning behind the amendment. He pointed out that one of the reasons provided in the press was that the government had removed CCTV footage and video recordings from public access because these could reveal the identity of voters.
“One of the reasons given in the press is, we have taken away CCTV, video because identity of voter is revealed,”
he submitted.
After the Court issued notice on the petition, Singhvi requested the Court to set a deadline for the respondents to file their replies. He emphasized the need for a specific deadline, stating, “Otherwise on that date they will say ‘reply (needs to be filed)’,” highlighting the possibility of delays if no clear timeline is set.
The recent amendments to Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, were made by the Central Government to restrict public access to certain electronic election documents. The government claimed this was done to prevent the misuse of electronic records related to elections. The amendments include restrictions on public access to CCTV camera footage, webcast footage, and video recordings of candidates during the election process.
The decision to amend these rules followed a recommendation made by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Interestingly, the amendments came shortly after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the ECI to provide videography, CCTV footage, and copies of documents related to votes cast at a polling station during the recent Haryana assembly elections. This order was passed after advocate Mehmood Pracha requested these records.
In his petition, Jairam Ramesh argued that the Election Commission, as a Constitutional body responsible for ensuring free and fair elections, should not be allowed to unilaterally suggest such an important amendment to the law without consulting the public.
Ramesh, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), criticized the move, calling it a blow to electoral integrity.
He stated, “The Election Commission, a Constitutional body entrusted with ensuring free and fair elections, cannot be permitted to unilaterally alter such a crucial law without public consultation in such an overt manner.” He also emphasized that restricting public access to these materials undermines transparency and accountability, key pillars of a strong electoral system.
The Congress party has repeatedly condemned the amendment, labeling it an attack on democratic values.
Ramesh added, “This change removes public access to vital information that ensures the electoral process remains transparent and accountable.” He expressed hope that the Supreme Court would step in to safeguard the integrity of the election process.
The petition highlights concerns that the amendment was introduced without sufficient public input, which the Congress argues erodes trust in institutions meant to uphold democratic principles.
The recent revision to Rule 93(2)(a) restricts public access to certain electoral documents, including surveillance footage and recordings. While the government defends the move as a means to prevent misuse, critics argue it conceals essential information and reduces the transparency of elections.
Case Details : JAIRAM RAMESH Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. W.P.(C) No. 18/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
