Analyzing recent Apex court judgement in case of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, WP(C) 1382 of 2019 with landmark judgments on electoral reforms.

 

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to refuse the directive for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose booth-wise voter turnout data under Form 17C has been a subject of much debate. The application, filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), sought the uploading of Form 17C data on the ECI website and the publication of booth-wise voter turnout data for:

 

        I.            Transparency in Electoral Process: The demand for uploading Form 17C data on the ECI website aims to enhance transparency in the electoral process. Form 17C contains crucial information such as the number of votes polled, postal ballots, and other relevant data. Making this information publicly available can help ensure the integrity of the electoral process and promote trust among stakeholders.

      II.            Accountability of Election Commission: The petition underscores the need for the Election Commission to be accountable to the public. By publishing booth-wise voter turnout data, the ECI can provide insights into voter participation patterns, identify areas of low turnout, and take necessary measures to improve voter engagement. This move can enhance the credibility of the electoral process and address concerns regarding voter disenfranchisement.

    III.            Data Privacy and Security: While transparency is essential, the petition also raises concerns about data privacy and security. The ECI needs to ensure that sensitive information such as voter details is protected from misuse and unauthorized access. Implementing robust data protection measures is crucial to safeguarding the privacy rights of voters.

    IV.            Legal and Constitutional Implications: The Supreme Court's role in adjudicating this petition highlights the legal and constitutional implications of electoral transparency. The Court must balance the right to information with other considerations such as privacy rights and national security concerns. Its decision will have far-reaching consequences for the electoral process and the functioning of democratic institutions.

      V.            Public Trust in Democratic Institutions: Ultimately, the petition reflects the broader goal of fostering public trust in democratic institutions. By promoting transparency and accountability, the ECI can strengthen the democratic fabric of the country and ensure that elections are conducted fairly and impartially. Upholding these principles is essential for the legitimacy of the electoral process and the functioning of democracy as a whole.

 

 The Court’s refusal was grounded in the principle of non-interference in the electoral process, emphasizing a “hands-off approach” during elections¹.

 

Landmark Judgments on Elections and Electoral Reforms in India: Following are judgments have significantly impacted the Indian electoral system, promoting transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. They reflect the judiciary's commitment to upholding democratic values and strengthening the electoral process in India.

 

1. Striking Down Electoral Bonds (2024): The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bond scheme unconstitutional, reinforcing election transparency and voter rights².
2. Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India (2002): Mandated disclosure of criminal, financial, and educational background of electoral candidates.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2013): Recognized the right to cast a negative vote through the ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) option.
4. Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013): Stripped MPs and MLAs of their seats upon conviction for offenses with two or more years of imprisonment.
5. Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018): The Court asked Parliament to legislate on barring criminals from contesting elections.
6. Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006): Upheld the abolition of domicile requirements for Rajya Sabha members.
7. PUCL vs Union of India (2003): Held that voters have a right to know the antecedents of candidates, leading to the use of affidavits.
8. Ramesh Dalal vs Union of India (2005): Barred candidates from contesting from more than two constituencies.
9. Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (2017): Held that appealing for votes on the basis of religion, race, caste, community, or language is illegal.
10. Indian National Congress vs Institute of Social Welfare (2002): Dealt with the issue of ‘office of profit’ and disqualification of elected members^.
11. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court ruled that candidates contesting elections must disclose criminal antecedents, financial assets, and liabilities, promoting transparency in electoral politics.
12. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978): The court upheld the independence of the Election Commission and its authority to conduct free and fair elections.
13. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The judgment established principles regarding the use of Article 356 (President's Rule), emphasizing parliamentary democracy and federalism in India.
14. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The verdict declared Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha void on grounds of electoral malpractice, setting a precedent for electoral integrity.
15. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court directed the implementation of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) for transparent and verifiable elections.
16. Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006): The court ruled that candidates contesting elections must declare their educational qualifications, enhancing transparency and preventing false claims.
17. Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018): The judgment mandated political parties to disclose details of donations received through electoral bonds, promoting transparency in political funding.
18. T. N. Seshan v. Union of India (1993): The Supreme Court upheld the autonomy and authority of the Election Commission, emphasizing its role in ensuring free and fair elections.

These judgments have significantly shaped the Indian electoral system, enhanced its integrity and ensured that it remains a true reflection of the democratic ethos of the country. The recent refusal to disclose Form 17C data, however, may be seen as a step back in the ongoing effort to increase transparency and trust in the electoral process.

Critical Analysis: The Court’s reasoning suggests a trust in the electoral authority’s processes and an inclination to avoid judicial intervention that could disrupt the electoral process. However, this decision raises questions about transparency and accountability in the electoral process. The ECI’s opposition, citing potential confusion among voters due to the inclusion of postal ballot counts, and the claim of no legal right to publish authenticated voter turnout data, could be viewed as a missed opportunity to enhance the transparency of the electoral process.

Disclaimer: This article provides a simplified overview of the above-mentioned issue. It is advisable to consult a legal professional for detailed interpretation and application of these provisions to specific cases.

If you are in Punjab and need assistance, you can reach out to Umakant Tripathi and Associates LLP at the following numbers:

• +91-7589056455
• +91-9519556455

We are conveniently located in Pathankot, Punjab, and can provide expert legal advice and representation to help you navigate the legal complexities.