Why Election Commission Should Release Digital Voter Lists in Public Interest

Legal Provisions Outweigh Challenges to Rahul Gandhi’s Demand

August 9, 2025

Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, has called on the Election Commission to release digital copies of voter lists from constituencies across India and CCTV footage from polling stations. The appeal follows his claim, supported by alleged evidence, that fake voters were included in the rolls for the Bangalore Central constituency, an allegation of a very serious nature for any country that presents itself as a democracy and one that must be addressed.

Gandhi made the demand during a rally in Bengaluru on August 8, a day after alleging that more than 100,000 votes were manipulated through five distinct forms of tampering in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment alone. At the rally, he described the demand as essential for exposing alleged irregularities in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as reported by The Indian Express.

Gandhi also urged the Congress party-led Karnataka government to investigate the matter and take action against those responsible. His demand covers a decade of electoral records, although the most immediate focus is on the rolls and footage from the latest general election.

There are clear legal grounds for Gandhi’s demand, particularly in the spirit of existing legal provisions, although statutory and constitutional obstacles could arise if the request were tested strictly against the letter of the law, an outcome that is neither warranted nor healthy in a democracy.

The Leader of the Opposition is a post recognised by law under the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Act, 1977. Although the Act mainly deals with pay and benefits, the role has significant political and constitutional influence in parliamentary work. As the head of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha, the Leader can use tools such as parliamentary questions, motions and committee referrals to obtain information from public authorities. A demand to the Election Commission from the Leader therefore carries the same rights as those of any citizen, reinforced by the added weight of parliamentary authority.

The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 provide the legal basis for obtaining electoral rolls. These laws require that rolls for every constituency be prepared, certified, published for public inspection and supplied in certified form to political parties and candidates. Since recognised political parties already receive these rolls, it is clear they exist in a shareable format. Asking for digital copies of the rolls from the latest Lok Sabha elections can therefore be seen as an extension of the legal duty to keep electoral records accessible.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 further supports the case. It defines information broadly to include material in any form, including electronic records, and requires public authorities to provide it in the form requested unless that would take up excessive resources or harm the integrity of the record. This creates a clear process for requesting digital copies of the latest electoral rolls. The Act also allows exemptions to be set aside if there is a strong public interest. Allegations of electoral fraud strengthen the argument that such public interest exists, while still allowing for privacy safeguards to be applied.

Constitutional principles also favour transparency in electoral records. The Supreme Court has held that the right to information is part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Having access to accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls allows proper scrutiny of the voting process and supports the Election Commission’s duty under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections. Supplying redacted digital rolls, with sensitive personal details removed, would uphold the right to information while protecting the right to privacy recognised in constitutional law.

The request for CCTV footage from polling stations is more complex. The Election Commission directs the use of cameras under its administrative powers and sets guidelines for retention. In practice, most CCTV footage is stored for a limited period, often no more than a few months, unless it is required for an active investigation or election petition. If footage from the latest election still exists, it qualifies as information under the RTI Act and could also be sought through parliamentary committees or by law enforcement agencies as evidence under the criminal procedure law.

It is right that the Election Commission is an independent constitutional authority and is not directly answerable to Parliament in the way a government department is. This independence, combined with privacy concerns, may lead to the release of only publicly available redacted rolls, and the decentralised storage of electoral records means digital rolls could be supplied as state-level or constituency-level files rather than a single national dataset. Even so, the combination of statutory publication duties under electoral law, rights under the RTI Act, constitutional guarantees of access to information, and the institutional authority of the Leader of the Opposition provides a strong legal basis for seeking the digital voter lists.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.