The Importance of Transparency

Newsreel Asia Insight #225
May 18, 2024

The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain the delay in releasing authenticated voter turnout data for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, raising concerns about transparency. The court’s intervention follows a petition detailing discrepancies and significant spikes in voter turnout percentages, which have fuelled public suspicion about the authenticity of the polling data and potential tampering of electronic voting machines (EVMs).

On May 17, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, leading a three-judge bench, questioned the ECI’s counsel about why data collected by polling officers by evening on voting days was not promptly uploaded, Bar and Bench reported.

This inquiry came after the civil society group Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan, Neha Rathi and Cheryl D’Souza, filed an application alleging substantial delays in publishing voter turnout data for the first two phases of the elections.

The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, under Rule 49S and Rule 56C (2), require the Presiding Officer to prepare an account of votes recorded in Form 17C (Part I). Despite this, the ECI had not been publishing the data promptly, leading to the Supreme Court’s involvement.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the ECI, argued that the application was an attempt to disrupt the General Elections, noting that four phases had already occurred, with the fifth phase scheduled for May 20. He referenced an April 26 Supreme Court judgment that had addressed the security of EVMs and the conduct of elections, including Form 17C. Singh requested more time to respond to the application, which the court granted, scheduling the next hearing for May 24, the day before the sixth phase of polling.

ADR’s petition noted that the voter turnout data for the first two phases was published by the ECI on April 30, 11 days after the first phase of polling on April 19, and four days after the second phase on April 26. The data showed a sharp increase of about 5-6% from the initial percentages announced by the ECI on polling days. The NGO argued that the delay, high revision rates, and lack of disaggregated constituency and polling station figures raised concerns about the data’s accuracy.

The Supreme Court bench, which included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, questioned ECI counsel Amit Sharma on the difficulties of promptly uploading voter turnout details. Sharma explained that collecting the data takes time, but the bench noted that polling officers submit data by evening and that returning officers have constituency data by the end of the day.

In response, the court directed the ECI to file a reply within a week, underscoring the public and political concerns regarding the correctness of the voter turnout data. The application urges the ECI to upload scanned, legible copies of Form 17C Part-I after each phase of polling, providing constituency and polling station-wise figures of voter turnout in absolute numbers and percentages. ADR is also seeking the disclosure of Part-II of Form 17C, which contains the candidate-wise result of counting.

The ECI has previously faced criticism for discrepancies in voter turnout data. During the 2019 general elections, the EC did not immediately make the final tally of votes available, providing only provisional data even after declaring the results. This led to reports of discrepancies between voter turnout and votes counted on EVMs.

ADR and NGO Common Cause had previously petitioned the Supreme Court in November 2019 to investigate these discrepancies, calling for accurate reconciliation of voter data before declaring election results. The petitioners stated that discrepancies, even if minor, could damage the credibility of the election process in a highly competitive political environment.

In the current elections, the ECI’s data released on May 16 recorded a total turnout of 66.95% for the first four phases, with 451 million voters participating out of nearly 970 million eligible voters, according to The Wire. However, the ECI did not release phase-wise or constituency-wise voter numbers. The Chief Electoral Officer of Assam had released cumulative voter numbers up to the third phase, prompting calls for the ECI to follow suit nationally.