Hearing highlights | SC refuses to direct ECI to publish booth-wise records of voter-turnout data, adjourns petitions

Supreme Court adjourns the case simpliciter and refuses to grant any interim relief. It points out that the application is seeking the same prayer as a 2019 pending writ petition. 

“Granting the interim prayer would amount to giving the final relief in the writ petition itself”, SC adds. 

The hearing concludes. 

“ We are simpliciter adjourning the matter, giving one reason why relief is not given at this stage”, Justice Datta says. 

The judge dictates the order in open court – “Arguments on the IA heard. Prima facie not inclined to grant any relief at this stage since prayer A of 2019 petition is similar to prayer B of the 2024 application. List the interim application before an appropriate Bench after vacations.” 

The judge adds that no opinions have been expressed on the merits of the case. 

Senior advocate AM Singhvi appearing for TMC leader Mahua Moitra says that it is a ‘travesty’ to say that issues on Form 17C was decided in the April 26 judgment in the EVM-VVPAT verification case. 

“Supreme Court does not apply interim and final relief strictly”, he adds. 

Justice Datta points out that five phases of the Lok Sabha polls are already over. “Huge human resources involved. We have to be conscious of the ground reality”, he adds. 

If we can do something to strengthen the elections process why should we be shut out? The ECI has the technology. It can show the figures. Please do not misunderstand us”, Mr. Dave asserts. 

“This petitioner (ADR) has got an excellent record of getting good jurisprudence from this Court”, he adds. 

“Everyone is for a fair and free elections”, Justice Datta says. He adds that the top Court cannot interrupt the conduct of elections.

In response, Mr. Dave says there is no substance in Mr. Singh’s submissions. 

“After two phases, the EC had itself revised the percentages. That is why we came here”, Mr. Dave adds. 

Justice Datta says that he had asked Mr. Singh whether the voter turnout app was statutory and that Mr. Singh had replied in the negative.

“Now, I will be forced to say someone will deter by the time such initiatives reach the half-way mark”, Justice Datta adds. 

“How can you expect an interim order which gives you final relief?”, Justice Datta asks Mr. Dave. The judge points out that the application was based on a petition filed in 2019. 

“The reliefs sought in the application is the final relief sought in the writ petition. We are not against public interest litigations. But how many PILs are meant for publicity and private interest”, Justice Datta remarks. 

Justice Datta asks senior advocate Dushyant Dave who is appearing for ADR –”Why an application in a pending petition; can you ask for further reliefs due to subsequent developments? Should a fresh petition not be filed?” 

Mr. Dave says that ADR has come bona fide. “Surprised and pained that ECI has chosen to damn us. This is not a adversarial petition”, he adds. 

“The trust for the ECI has to be fostered not punctured through such applications. This application should be dismissed with exemplary costs”, Mr. Singh concludes his submissions. 

Mr. Singh points out how Justice Datta had questioned the bona fides of ADR in the EVM-VVPAt cross verification verdict. 

“Even ADR’s petition against EVMs was based on apprehension. Same goes for their application on delay/palpable differences in voter turnout percentages on Lok Sabha polls”, he adds. 

“The same day of the April 26 judgment, the “factory” of the petitioner started for this application”, Mr. Singh alleges. 

• “It is of immediate relevance to note that in recent years, a trend has been fast developing of certain vested interest groups endeavouring to undermine the achievements and accomplishments of the nation, earned through the hard work and dedication of its sincere workforce. There seems to be a concerted effort to discredit, diminish, and weaken the progress of this great nation on every possible frontier. Any such effort, or rather attempt, has to be nipped in the bud. No Constitutional court, far less this Court, would allow such an attempt to succeed as long as it (the court) has a say in the matter” – ​Justice Dipankar Datta in Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commisison of India​ (2024).

“There are 8336 candidates, 10.5 lakh polling booths. Every candidate has polling agents, a total of over 87,000. Everyone is checking the process, keeping an eagle’s eye on the conduct. Imagination and supposition cannot be made weapons against the ECI”, Singh refers to April 26 judgment of the SC in the EVM-VVPAT cross verification case. 

Also Read: SC thumbs-up for EVMs, declines plea to revive paper ballot

SC thumbs-up for EVMs, declines plea to revive paper ballot

Supreme Court rejects plea for paper ballots in Indian elections, suggests electronic counting and bar codes for transparency.

The senior counsel further argues that the allegations of the petitioners ​that there is a difference of 5 to 6 percent ​between initial and absolute voter turnout details is “wrong”. 

Mr. Singh accused petitioners of churning out a continuous flow of pleas based on suspicions to create an “unwarranted atmosphere” of suspicion in the public mind against the ECI. 

Also Read: ​Explained | Why are concerns being raised over the Election Commission’s voter turnout data?​

Mr. Singh further contends that the April 26 judgment in the EVM-VVPAT cross-verfication case was holistic. He says that ‘vested interests’ cannot be allowed to interfere while the election process is on where 96 crore voters are involved. 

Repeated attempts to interfere with the festival of democracy must be dealt with a heavy hands, he adds. 

Justice Dipankar Datta allows Mr. Singh to submit arguemnts on his preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petitions. 

Mr. Singh argues that the application by ADR is founded only on suspicions and false allegations. He points out that concurring judgments of the top Court have held that there is no room for raising suspicion when polls are going on. He asserts that issues regarding Rule 49S of the ​Conduct of Election Rules, 1961​ and Form 17C were discussed in the ​EVM-VVPAT cross-verfication verdict​. 

Also Read: ​EVM-VVPAT case: What are the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s verdict?​

​

EVM-VVPAT case: What are the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s verdict?

Supreme Court upholds EVM system, emphasizes caution in questioning electoral integrity, issues directions to strengthen electoral process.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh appearing for the ECI raises preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petitions. He says that petitions like these is meant to disrupt the conduct of elections. 

Senior advocate AM Singhvi says he is appearing for TMC leader Mahua Moitra. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave appears for the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). 

A vacation Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma will hear the matter shortly. The matter is listed as item number 9. 

Flagging their concerns over the fluctuation in figures of voter turnouts in the first two phases of the ongoing Lok Sabha election, a group of civil society members and former bureaucrats have urged the Election Commission of India to “immediately disclose” through its website, the authenticated record of voter turnout as contained in Part I of Form 17C - which is the account of votes recorded in each polling station.

Read more here. 

Highlighting the overall difference of 1.07 crore between real time voter turnout data and the final figures released by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Congress has claimed that this difference translated into 28,000 voters in each Lok Sabha constituency.

Congress leader Pawan Khera, who heads the media and publicity department of the party, took to social media platform X to raise this difference in about 380 Lok Sabha seats, terming it unprecedented.

Read more here. 

Congress questions delay in release of voter turnout data by EC

Congress questions Election Commission over 1.7 crore vote difference, raising concerns about transparency and integrity of the process.

The Election Commission (EC) has told the Supreme Court that there was no “legal mandate” to provide the voter turnout data to any person other than electoral candidates or his agents.

“There is no legal mandate to provide the Form 17C [account of votes recorded] to any other person other than the candidate or his agent,” the EC said in a 225-page affidavit.

Read more here. 

No legal mandate to share voter turnout with anyone other than candidates and their agents, EC tells Supreme Court

Election Commission denies legal mandate to disclose voter turnout data, counters allegations of EVM tampering by ADR.

The delay by the Election Commission (EC) in sharing the aggregate polling data of the first and second phases of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections has evoked sharp questions from the Opposition and civil society. The EC released the final voter turnout figures for phase 1 after 11 days, and for phase 2 after four days. Moreover, it has only released turnout percentages – 66.14% in Phase 1 and 66.71% in phase 2. It is yet to release the actual numbers of voters who cast their vote.

Read more here. 

Association for Democratic Reforms notes there was also an unusually sharp spike in figures from the initial voter turnout percentages released by the poll panel, creating doubts about authenticity. 

The Supreme Court last Friday orally asked the Election Commission (EC) to explain its inability to immediately upload on its website authenticated, scanned and legible accounts of votes recorded booth-wise after each phase of polling in Lok Sabha elections.

Read more here. 

While Opposition parties and civil society groups want Form 17 C which has the absolute number of votes polled in a booth to be released online, Election Commission maintains that the information is supposed to be given only to polling agents, and not to the general public or even the media. 

Read more here. 

Booth agents get absolute turnout data, but not all candidates can afford them

Training for polling agents on EVMs and Form 17 C raises transparency concerns in the 2024 general election.