The Supreme Court has declined to issue directives to the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding a plea demanding the immediate disclosure of authenticated voter turnout records.
The court emphasized a “hands-off approach” during active Lok Sabha elections, highlighting the potential disruptions judicial interference could cause to ongoing procedures.
A vacation bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma deferred the plea by non-profit Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) for immediate publication of booth-wise voter turnout data on the ECI website.
The bench highlighted that addressing such concerns during the election process could be imprudent, considering settled judicial precedents. They emphasized the necessity of trust in the electoral authority and stressed that interrupting ongoing elections could have adverse implications.
Arguments and Court’s Observations
Senior counsel Dushyant Dave, representing ADR, argued that the delay by ECI in publishing authenticated data on voter turnout has created anxiety among citizens. However, the bench raised questions regarding the timing of the petition and the appropriateness of the relief sought.
The court observed that the interim relief sought by ADR resembled the final relief prayed for in their 2019 petition, questioning the timing and procedure followed by the petitioner. It also commented on the nature of public interest litigations (PIL), urging circumspection in approaching such matters.
ECI’s Response and Concerns
ECI, represented by senior counsel Maninder Singh, raised objections to ADR’s plea, citing false allegations and unfounded suspicions as the foundation for the application.
The polling body highlighted logistical and practical challenges in complying with the demands, stating that indiscriminate disclosure of certain data could lead to mistrust in the electoral process.
The affidavit submitted by ECI addressed allegations of delays and discrepancies in publishing voter turnout data, emphasizing the provisional nature of the information available on the Voter Turnout App. It argued that the final figures are recorded in Form 17C at the close of polling, following statutory procedures.
With the Supreme Court deferring the plea, the matter is set to be re-listed after the completion of the ongoing polls. The court, while expressing no opinion on merits, indicated a prima facie view against granting interim relief due to similarities between the interim application and the main petition.
However, the court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures and avoiding disruptions during active election periods.
Comments