CONDUCT
OF ELECTION RULES - POLITY
NEWS: The Centre
amended the Conduct of Election Rules to restrict access for the public to a section of poll
documents.
WHAT’S IN
THE NEWS?
What is the Conduct of Election Rules (1961)?
- The Conduct of Election
Rules (1961) is a comprehensive set of regulations designed to govern
the procedures for conducting elections in India.
- It is framed under the Representation
of the People Act, 1950 and Representation of the People Act, 1951
to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections.
- These rules detail the
processes, including the preparation of electoral rolls, nomination of
candidates, voting procedures, and the handling of election documents and
materials.
The Recent Amendment
- On December 20, 2024,
the Union Ministry of Law and Justice issued a notification
amending Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
- Prior to the amendment, Rule
93(2)(a) stated that “all other papers relating to the election shall be
open to public inspection.”
- Following the amendment, the
rule was modified to read, “all other papers as specified in these rules
relating to the election shall be open to public inspection.” This change
significantly limits public access to certain types of election documents.
- Specifically, the amendment
places restrictions on access to electronic records and CCTV
footage from polling stations, which are now excluded from general
public inspection.
Reason for the Amendment
- The amendment was
prompted by a recent court ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, which directed the Election Commission (EC) to share all
documents related to the Haryana Assembly elections, including CCTV
footage. The ruling interpreted Rule 93(2) as applying to such
footage, thus expanding public access to electronic data.
- According to the Election
Commission, the previous wording of Rule 93 did not specifically
address the handling of electronic records like CCTV footage,
leading to potential security concerns and confusion over their
accessibility.
- The EC explained that the
decision to restrict access to CCTV footage was driven by concerns about
the secrecy of voting and the potential misuse of footage,
especially in sensitive regions where election security is
critical. They also highlighted the risks of using artificial
intelligence tools to manipulate or analyze footage from inside
polling stations.
Opposition and Activist Criticism
- Transparency activists and opposition parties have
strongly opposed the amendment, arguing that it curtails the Right to
Information (RTI) and undermines the democratic process.
- Anjali Bharadwaj, a prominent RTI
activist, described Rule 93 as being analogous to the RTI Act
for elections, as it ensures that the public has access to important
election-related documents, which is vital for maintaining transparency
and accountability in the electoral process.
- Venkatesh Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth
Human Rights Initiative, criticized the amendment, saying that it
appears to restrict access to several important documents not explicitly
covered in the Conduct of Election Rules, but which are still
crucial for citizens' understanding of the electoral process. For
instance, documents such as the Presiding Officers’ diaries, which
record voter turnout, voting patterns, and the distribution
of tokens during elections, were not specifically mentioned in the
rules but were traditionally accessible to the public.
- Activists argue that this
move is part of a broader effort to limit public scrutiny of the electoral
process, especially regarding concerns about voter turnout and the
integrity of the election data.
The Opposition's Reaction
- The Congress Party
has vehemently opposed the amendment, claiming that it is part of a “systematic
conspiracy” by the ruling government to undermine the integrity of
the Election Commission (EC).
- Congress President
Mallikarjun Kharge stated that the amendment is an attempt to
erode the institutional independence of the EC and pointed out that
this move is consistent with their earlier concerns about the deteriorating
integrity of the election process under the current government.
- The Samajwadi Party
and Left parties have also joined the opposition in condemning the
changes, accusing the Election Commission of unilateral
decision-making and undermining the spirit of multi-party democracy
by not consulting political parties before making such significant
alterations to the election rules.
- In response, the Congress
has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the
amendments, asserting that these changes could severely restrict
transparency and public access to election-related information.
What the Election Commission Claims
- The Election Commission
(EC) has defended the amendment, explaining that it was necessary to clarify
ambiguities in the original wording of Rule 93(2), particularly
regarding the handling of electronic records like CCTV footage.
- The EC argued that the
change was essential to preserve the secrecy of the vote,
especially in sensitive areas where the security of the election process
is paramount. They emphasized that the public inspection rule still
applies to most paper-based election documents and materials.
- The EC also raised concerns
about the misuse of CCTV footage, suggesting that such footage
could be exploited using modern technologies like artificial
intelligence to manipulate or misinterpret the election process, which
could pose a significant threat to the integrity of elections.
- The EC stressed that while electronic
data will no longer be available for public inspection, all other
election documents—such as polling station records, voter lists, and
reports filed by election officers—will remain open to scrutiny by the
public, ensuring a degree of transparency in the electoral process.