The Supreme Court on Friday granted a two-week extension to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file their response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the recent amendment to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
The amendment in question limits public access to CCTV footage and other polling records, sparking concerns over transparency in the electoral process.
Court Clarifies
During the hearing, the Court also addressed concerns raised by an intervenor who argued that the ongoing PIL might restrict High Courts from hearing similar petitions. In response, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna clarified:
“The pendency of the present petition will not have a bearing on writ petitions, if any, filed before the High Courts.”
This clarification ensures that parallel legal challenges in various High Courts can proceed independently.
Details of the Amendment
The PIL, filed by Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh, challenges the vires (legality) of the Union’s amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which deals with the production and inspection of election papers.
Previous Rule: “All other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection.”
Amended Rule: “All other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection.”
This change has raised concerns that CCTV footage and other key election documents may now be withheld from public access.
History
During a previous hearing, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Jairam Ramesh, argued that the Union’s justification for the amendment—protecting voter privacy—was misleading. He stated that there was no evidence to suggest that voter identities were being compromised under the earlier rules.
According to the Handbook of the Returning Officer, 2023, several important electoral documents, including CCTV footage of polling stations, Form 17C (vote count records), and copies of results, were available for public access and inspection prior to the amendment.
This suggests that the rule change could reduce transparency and limit public oversight of the electoral process.
Case Insights
The Supreme Court has now granted two more weeks for the ECI and the Union Government to submit their replies. The Court also allowed for rejoinders to be filed thereafter.
The case is expected to play a critical role in determining the future of transparency in Indian elections, especially in the context of access to polling-related data.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
