On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to issue directives to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in response to a plea demanding the immediate release of authenticated voter turnout records. Emphasizing the necessity of a “hands-off approach” during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, the court noted the potential implications of judicial interference.
A vacation bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, highlighted the risk of disrupting the electoral process by intervening during an active election period. The bench deferred the plea by the non-profit Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which sought the immediate publication of booth-wise voter turnout data on the ECI website. A similar petition by Mahua Moitra, a former Trinamool Congress parliamentarian and current candidate from the Krishnanagar seat in West Bengal, was also considered alongside ADR’s plea.
The bench acknowledged the arguments presented by senior counsel Maninder Singh, representing the ECI, who pointed out that the plea was filed after the election process had already commenced. Given the settled judicial precedents, the bench deemed it imprudent to address such concerns during the election process.
“It’s an election spread over seven phases. Tomorrow is the sixth phase. The compliance you are asking for will require significant manpower and regulatory adjustments,” the bench informed senior counsel Dushyant Dave, representing ADR, and senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Moitra.
The Supreme Court’s order noted that ADR’s 2019 petition sought a final relief similar to the interim application under consideration. The bench questioned the timing of ADR’s filing, asking why the petition was not listed earlier and was only filed in April after the election process had started.
Also read: Delhi Metro To Start From 4 Am On May 25 Due To Sixth Phase Of Polls
In response, Dave stated that ADR approached the court in public interest, citing the ECI’s delay in publishing authenticated voter turnout data as a cause of public anxiety. However, the bench stressed the need for circumspection regarding public interest litigations (PILs), noting that many such cases often have ulterior motives. The court clarified that while ADR might have a valid case on merits, their approach and timing were not appropriate.
Additionally, the court remarked that the ECI may have complicated matters by releasing provisional data through the Voter Turnout App, which led to the current situation.
