The Election Commission of India (ECI), the constitutional entity tasked with ensuring free and fair elections, has recently taken a step that signals a disquieting retreat from transparency into a constitutionally suspect zone of opacity. The ECI, reportedly, has mandated the destruction of all election-related CCTV, webcasting, and video footage after a mere 45-day period post-declaration of results. This executive order, presented as a benign administrative update, is in fact a measure with profound constitutional implications, posing a direct and formidable challenge to the foundational principles of electoral integrity, the citizen’s fundamental right to information, and the overarching rule of law.

This article posits that the ECI’s directive is a facially unconstitutional act. It is a colourable exercise of power that is manifestly arbitrary, directly infringes upon the fundamental rights to information and equality as enshrined in Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution of India, and systematically dismantles the architecture of electoral justice. By ordering the pre-emptive destruction of the most crucial and unimpeachable evidence of electoral conduct, the directive effectively sabotages the statutory right to challenge an election, thereby undermining the basic structure of the Constitution, which is predicated on the pillars of democratic accountability and judicial review.

The analysis herein will proceed in a structured manner to build this constitutional challenge. First, it will deconstruct the impugned directive and its legislative predicate—the controversial December 2024 amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961—to reveal an architecture of engineered obscurity. Second, it will examine the nature and limits of the ECI’s plenary powers under Article 324, arguing that these powers are intended to be a shield for democracy, not a sword against its core principles. Third, the article will establish the directive’s irreconcilable conflict with the judicially fortified fundamental right of the voter to be informed, a right that has been repeatedly expanded and protected by the Supreme Court. Fourth, it will apply the rigorous test of arbitrariness, as articulated under Article 14, to expose the flimsiness of the ECI’s official justifications. Finally, the article will conclude with a call for reversal to restore the vital light of transparency to India’s electoral process, without which democracy itself is diminished.

I. The Architecture of Obscurity: The Directive and its Legislative Precursor

To comprehend the full constitutional import of the ECI’s data destruction mandate, it is essential to first dissect the policy itself and place it in its immediate legal and historical context. The directive issued on May 30, 2025 did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the culmination of a two-pronged administrative and legislative strategy that has progressively and systematically constricted the avenues for public and judicial scrutiny of the electoral process. This section will detail this strategic construction of an opaque regime, beginning with the directive’s radical departure from established policy, followed by an analysis of its legislative foundation, and concluding with a deconstruction of the untenable justifications offered by the Commission.

A. The May 30, 2025 Directive: A Drastic Reversal of Policy

The directive reportedly mandates that all “CCTV data, webcasting data and photography of election processes at various stages” shall be preserved for a period of only 45 days following the declaration of results. After this period, if no election petition pertaining to the specific constituency has been filed, the letter instructs that “the said data may be destroyed”.

This new policy represents a sharp and dramatic reversal of the ECI’s earlier guidelines. The earlier framework—outlined in a 2024 memo issued to all Chief Electoral Officers of states—had established a more nuanced and robust retention schedule.

Under those guidelines, the retention period for video and photographic evidence was tiered according to the specific stage of the electoral process, acknowledging the varying evidentiary relevance of different records. For instance, footage from the pre-nomination period was to be kept for three months, while recordings of critical processes like nomination, campaigning, polling, and counting were to be preserved for periods ranging from six months to a full year. This tiered system provided a reasonable and extended window for the discovery of irregularities and the gathering of evidence.

The new directive collapses this logical, multi-tiered structure into a single, dangerously short, 45-day deadline for all forms of electronic footage. The ECI has explicitly linked this 45-day period to the limitation for filing an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The radical nature of this policy shift is best illustrated by a direct comparison.

B. The Legislative Precursor: The December 2024 Amendment to Rule 93(2)(a)

The ECI’s data destruction directive was preceded and enabled by a crucial legislative change. In December 2024, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, acting on the recommendation of the ECI, amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The original text of Rule 93(2)(a) was a broad, inclusive provision that stated “all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection”.

The amendment was deceptively simple. It inserted the phrase “as specified in these rules” into the provision. The amended rule now reads: “all other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection”. Since electronic records like CCTV footage, webcasting clips, and video recordings are not explicitly “specified” in the Rules as inspectable papers, this amendment effectively created a legal shield, removing them from the ambit of public inspection.

The timing of this amendment is highly suggestive of its intent. It was pushed through just two weeks after the Punjab and Haryana High Court, acting on a petition filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha, had directed the ECI to release election papers and videography related to the Haryana Assembly elections, as reported by The Hindu. The clear cause-and-effect relationship indicates that the amendment was not a proactive measure for good governance but a reactive manoeuvre designed to pre-empt further judicial orders compelling transparency. It was a move from a default-open system to a default-closed system. This legislative change laid the groundwork for the subsequent administrative directive; once access to the footage was legally restricted, the next logical step was to mandate its physical destruction.

This amendment has not gone unchallenged. A plea filed by transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj is currently pending before the Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment imposes “unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to information of voters” and seeks to keep crucial records out of the purview of public disclosure.

C. Deconstructing the ECI’s Justifications: A Veil of Plausible Deniability

The 2024 memo and later reports reveal a trio of justifications by the ECI for its new policy, each of which wilts under scrutiny and appears to be a veil for the directive’s true effect of fostering opacity.

1. The “Internal Management Tool” Fallacy: The Commission has claimed that videography and CCTV footage are not mandated by law but are used merely as an “internal management tool”. This characterisation is a gross misrepresentation of the role these technologies play in modern elections. The ECI’s own circulars state and call for use of CCTV and videography for a wide spectrum of critical processes. This includes the First Level Checking (FLC) of EVMs, the security of strong rooms where EVMs are stored, surveillance of critical polling stations, and the entire counting process. The existence of such detailed, mandatory protocols demonstrates that these recordings are not a peripheral or optional extra; they are an integral and indispensable component of the ECI’s own framework for ensuring electoral integrity. To dismiss them as a mere “internal tool” is to contradict its own established procedures and suggests a post-facto rationalization for an otherwise indefensible policy of destruction.
2. The Exaggerated “Voter Privacy” Concern: The ECI has also cited the need to protect voter privacy, arguing that the release of footage could lead to the identification of voters and expose them to pressure, discrimination, or intimidation. While voter privacy is a legitimate concern, the ECI’s solution—the complete and permanent destruction of all footage—is a disproportionate and extreme response. It is an argument that sacrifices the integrity of the entire electoral process at the altar of a speculative and manageable risk. Numerous less restrictive alternatives exist to balance privacy with accountability. For instance, access could be mediated through court orders, which is an existing process; footage could be redacted to obscure the faces of ordinary voters not involved in any alleged malpractice, or access could be limited to specific segments relevant to a legal challenge. The ECI’s choice of the most extreme option—annihilation of the record—over these balanced alternatives reveals that privacy is likely a pretext, not the primary driver of the policy.
3. The “Malicious Narratives” Pretext: The most heavily relied-upon justification is the need to curb the “recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media”. This was also a concern mentioned in the 2024 memo. Objectively, this rationale is constitutionally perilous. It amounts to a “heckler’s veto” over public information, where the potential for misuse by a few is used to justify denying access to all, including the judiciary. The duty of a state agency in a democracy is to counter misinformation with facts and to prosecute illegal misuse of data, not to eliminate the data itself. This reasoning shows a paternalistic and troubling distrust of the citizenry, the media, and the courts, assuming they are incapable of discerning context or truth.

The timing of this rationale is particularly telling. It follows the high-profile Chandigarh mayoral poll case, where CCTV footage was not misused for “malicious narratives” but was used by the Supreme Court itself to expose and rectify a blatant subversion of democracy. The most prominent recent use of such footage was to uphold the rule of law, not to spread misinformation. This context strongly suggests that the ECI’s stated fear of “malicious narratives” is a convenient cover for a more profound fear of “inconvenient truths” that objective video evidence can irrefutably reveal.

II. The Plenary Power of the ECI: A Shield for Democracy, Not a Sword Against It

At the heart of the ECI’s authority lies Article 324 of the Constitution, a provision that grants it vast and plenary powers to ensure the sanctity of the electoral process.

A. The “Reservoir of Power” under Article 324

Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India vests the “superintendence, direction and control” of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections in the Election Commission. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, provided the most authoritative interpretation of this clause. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, writing for the majority, famously described Article 324 as a “reservoir of power” for the ECI. The Court held that this provision endows the Commission with the necessary authority to address any contingency that may arise during an election for which the enacted laws—such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)—are silent. The core principle is that where the law has a vacuum, the ECI can step in with its plenary powers to ensure that the constitutional objective of a free and fair election is not frustrated.

In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 (6) SCC 1, the Supreme Court recommended an independent appointments committee, revealing a consistent concern with insulating the Commission from executive influence and preventing arbitrary action. The judiciary has consistently pushed for an ECI that is not only powerful but also independent, accountable, and non-arbitrary.

B. The Limits of Plenary Power: Subservience to Law and Fundamental Rights

The “reservoir of power” doctrine is not a license for unchecked authority. The Supreme Court has been equally clear about its limitations. The ECI’s power under Article 324 is fundamentally bound by two critical constraints:

1. Conformity with Existing Law: The plenary power operates only in areas “unoccupied by legislation”. Where Parliament has enacted a specific law governing a particular aspect of the electoral process, the ECI is bound to act in conformity with that law. It cannot issue directives that override, contradict, or frustrate the purpose and scheme of a validly enacted statute.
2. Adherence to the Constitution: The ECI, as a creature of the Constitution, must exercise its powers in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution’s fundamental tenets. Its actions cannot abrogate the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III and must not damage the basic structure of the Constitution, of which free and fair elections, democracy, and the rule of law are indispensable components.

The directive to destroy CCTV footage after 45 days transgresses both these boundaries. It is a quintessential “colourable exercise of power”—an action that, while ostensibly within the ECI’s administrative domain, is in substance an encroachment upon the legislative field and an affront to constitutional principles. The Parliament has created a detailed statutory framework for the resolution of election disputes through the mechanism of an election petition, as laid out in Part VI of the RPA, 1951 (Sections 80-116C). Section 87 of the RPA explicitly states that the trial of an election petition shall be governed, as nearly as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shall apply in all respects.

This statutory scheme presupposes the existence and availability of evidence. By mandating the destruction of the most direct, objective, and unimpeachable form of evidence—video footage—the ECI is not merely “managing” an internal process; it is actively sabotaging the efficacy of the judicial process prescribed by Parliament. It creates an evidentiary vacuum that directly frustrates the ability of a High Court to adjudicate an election petition on its merits. This is a clear inversion of the Mohinder Singh Gill doctrine. The ECI’s power was intended to be used remedially, to fill gaps in the law to ensure fairness. Here, it is being used to create a gap—an evidentiary black hole—that subverts fairness.

For example, what happens when an election petition gets filed on the 44^th day post the declaration of results and in the course of the proceedings, the Court orders the ECI to produce the camera recording of the election process. The Election Commission can simply say that it does not keep such data and get away with it.

Furthermore, the directive runs counter to the entire trajectory of judicial thinking on the ECI’s institutional integrity. The Supreme Court’s interventions, from commenting on the abolition of Election Commissioner posts in S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 567, to mandating a new appointment process in Anoop Baranwal, have been aimed at strengthening the ECI’s independence and ensuring its decisions are judicious and not arbitrary. As the Court observed in  Dhanoa, when an institution is “accountable to none, it is politic to entrust its affairs to more hands than one. It helps to assure judiciousness and want of arbitrariness”. A unilateral executive fiat of this magnitude, which reverses long-standing policy and has far-reaching consequences for electoral justice without any public consultation, embodies the very kind of arbitrary executive action that the judiciary has consistently sought to curb. It is an exercise of power that prioritizes administrative convenience and opacity over the constitutional duty to uphold democratic accountability.

III. The Voter’s Right to Know: A Non-Negotiable Fundamental Right

The ECI’s directive to erase the visual record of an election is also a direct and frontal assault on a fundamental right that the Supreme Court has painstakingly carved out and fortified over two decades: the voter’s right to information. This right, derived from the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is the lifeblood of an informed electorate and the bedrock of a functioning democracy. The ECI’s policy of data destruction attempts to constrict this right, treating it as a limited, disposable privilege rather than the dynamic, non-negotiable right the Constitution guarantees.

A. The Evolution of the Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a)

The jurisprudential journey of the voter’s right to know began in earnest with the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), (2002) 5 SCC 294. In this seminal case, the Court was faced with the question of whether voters had a right to know the background of the candidates seeking their votes. The Court’s answer was an emphatic affirmative. It ruled that the right to vote would be meaningless without access to information about the candidates. For a citizen to make an informed choice, which is the essence of participation in a democracy, they have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to be informed of the antecedents of candidates, including their criminal records, financial assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications. The Court reasoned that “misinformation or non-information of any kind will create an ‘uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce'”.

When Parliament attempted to dilute this judgment by passing an amendment to the RPA, the Supreme Court stood firm. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, the Court struck down the newly inserted Section 33B of the RPA, which sought to prevent candidates from having to disclose any information beyond what was statutorily required. The Court powerfully articulated that the voter’s right to information is not a static concept that can be capped or frozen by legislation. It declared this right to be dynamic, one that must be allowed to grow and evolve to meet the needs of a maturing democracy. This judgment established a crucial principle: the fundamental right to information in the electoral sphere cannot be curtailed by ordinary legislation or executive action.

B. From Candidate Information to Systemic Transparency: The Electoral Bonds Judgment

The scope of this fundamental right was dramatically expanded in the recent, constitutionally significant judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds Case), 2024 INSC 113. Here, the Supreme Court extended the right to information beyond the individual candidate to the systemic issue of political party funding. In striking down the anonymous Electoral Bonds Scheme, the Court held that the secrecy of political funding violates the voter’s right to know under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court’s reasoning is directly applicable to the present issue. It held that “information about funding to a political party is essential for a voter to exercise their freedom to vote in an effective manner”. The logic is clear: to make a truly informed choice, a voter needs to know not just about the candidate, but also about the forces and finances that influence the political system. This principle of systemic transparency is paramount. The conduct of the election itself—whether it is free from malpractice, whether counting is accurate, whether strong rooms are secure—is a critical piece of systemic information.

C. The Directive’s Assault on the Right to Information

The ECI’s directive to destroy video footage is a modern-day analogue to the unconstitutional Section 33B that was struck down in the PUCL case. While Section 33B was a legislative attempt to block access to information, the ECI’s directive achieves the very same end through administrative means—by physically and permanently destroying the source of the information. It is an attempt to “freeze and stagnate” the right to information by rendering it unenforceable.

The ECI’s narrow, litigation-centric view—that the footage exists only for the purpose of an election petition and is useless after 45 days—is a constitutionally flawed perspective. The right to information serves a much broader purpose than merely facilitating litigation. It is essential for continuous public discourse, academic research, media scrutiny, and civil society advocacy for electoral reforms. By destroying the raw data of an election’s conduct, the ECI prevents any meaningful post-mortem analysis of the process, shields systemic flaws from public view, and stifles the very debates that strengthen democracy. This is a direct infringement of the collective right of the citizenry under Article 19(1)(a) to receive and impart information about the functioning of a core democratic institution.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has consistently moved towards greater transparency. The ECI’s directive represents a stark and unconstitutional reversal of this trend.

The balancing act between the right to information and the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court meticulously performed in the Electoral Bonds case using a “double proportionality” test, is entirely absent in the ECI’s calculus. The Court acknowledged the privacy interests of donors but ultimately found that the public’s right to know was paramount for ensuring electoral integrity. In stark contrast, the ECI’s directive gives absolute and disproportionate primacy to a speculative privacy concern and a paternalistic fear of “misuse,” while completely extinguishing the concrete and judicially sanctified fundamental right to information.

IV. The Animus of Arbitrariness: The Directive’s Violation of Article 14

Beyond its infringement of the right to information, the ECI’s directive is constitutionally vulnerable for its inherent arbitrariness. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. Over decades of interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded this guarantee to serve as a formidable bulwark against arbitrary state action. Any executive or legislative act that is unreasonable, irrational, or capricious is liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14. The ECI’s data destruction mandate, when subjected to this test, reveals itself to be a textbook case of arbitrary executive action.

A. The Doctrine of Arbitrariness: Maneka Gandhi and its Progeny

The modern doctrine of arbitrariness was powerfully articulated by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. In this case, the Court held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be “fair, just and reasonable,” not “fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary”. Crucially, the Court established the “golden triangle” principle, holding that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not mutually exclusive silos but are deeply interlinked. An action that is arbitrary under Article 14 would fail the test of reasonableness under Article 21 and could also impose unreasonable restrictions under Article 19.

Following Maneka Gandhi, the Court in cases like EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 4 SCC 3 explicitly stated that “equality is antithetical to arbitrariness” and that Article 14 embodies a guarantee against any form of arbitrary state action. This means that every action of the state or its instrumentalities must be based on reason and must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations.

B. Applying the Arbitrariness Test to the ECI’s Directive

When the ECI’s directive is placed on the anvil of the arbitrariness test, it fails on multiple counts.

1. Lack of a Rational Nexus: For an action to be non-arbitrary, there must be a rational nexus between the objective it seeks to achieve and the means adopted to achieve it. The ECI’s stated primary objective is to prevent the misuse of footage on social media to create “malicious narratives”. The means adopted is the blanket destruction of all footage for all purposes after 45 days. There is no rational connection between these two. The policy is excessively broad; it uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut. To prevent potential misuse by a few “non-contestants,” it penalizes all legitimate stakeholders, including electoral candidates, the judiciary, researchers, and the general public. The proper response to misuse is targeted legal action against the miscreants under existing laws (such as the Indian Penal Code or the Information Technology Act), not the pre-emptive destruction of a public record.
2. Gross Disproportionality: The measure is also grossly disproportionate to the harm it purports to prevent. The speculative harm of a few “malicious narratives” on social media cannot justify the certain and irreversible harm of destroying an entire class of crucial evidence that is vital for upholding the integrity of the democratic process. As argued previously, less restrictive and more proportionate alternatives are readily available. These could include creating secure archives, allowing access only through a court order, or implementing a system of redaction to protect voter privacy while preserving evidence of official conduct. The ECI’s choice of the most extreme and destructive option available demonstrates a lack of application of mind and is, therefore, arbitrary.
3. The Unreasonableness of the 45-Day Timeline: The 45-day timeline is itself a product of arbitrary and unreasonable logic. The RPA, 1951, provides a 45-day limitation period to file an election petition. An election petition is a serious legal undertaking that requires a petitioner to plead “material facts” and “full particulars” of any corrupt practice (Section 83, RPA, 1951). Gathering sufficient prima facie evidence of malpractice across a constituency—which can have over a thousand polling stations—consulting with legal counsel, and drafting a legally sound petition is a formidable task. The ECI’s directive creates a perverse situation where the clock for the destruction of the best evidence runs concurrently with the clock for filing the petition. This makes it practically impossible for a petitioner to access and analyse this crucial evidence to build a credible case before the deadline expires. The directive, therefore, does not merely align with the limitation period; it weaponizes it, using it as a guillotine to sever the link between a legal challenge and the evidence needed to sustain it.

This policy is both procedurally and substantively arbitrary. It is procedurally arbitrary because it was enacted as a unilateral executive fiat, reversing a long-standing, reasoned policy without any apparent stakeholder consultation. It is substantively arbitrary because the policy itself, as demonstrated, is irrational, disproportionate, and serves no legitimate public purpose that could outweigh the immense damage it does to the principle of electoral transparency. The arbitrariness is not an unintended consequence; it appears to be a deliberate feature designed to create a system of de facto impunity for electoral malpractice. By making the burden of proof for an election petitioner nearly impossible to discharge, the directive structurally insulates electoral processes from effective judicial review, a result that is the very definition of an arbitrary state action that undermines the rule of law.

The critical importance of video evidence is not a matter of academic speculation; it has been vividly demonstrated in recent events. The Chandigarh mayoral poll case (2024) stands as a powerful testament to this fact. It was solely the “unimpeachable” evidence captured by CCTV cameras that allowed the Supreme Court to witness the Presiding Officer brazenly defacing ballot papers. This video evidence enabled the Court to intervene decisively, overturn the fraudulent result.

The directive also unfairly shifts the burden of proof in election petitions. By destroying the best evidence, the ECI forces petitioners to rely on weaker, circumstantial evidence and oral testimony, which is notoriously difficult to marshal and easy to discredit. The state, through its instrumentality, is actively destroying evidence that could corroborate a petitioner’s claim, making an already difficult legal burden nearly impossible to discharge. This fundamentally subverts the notion of a fair trial as envisaged under Section 87 of the RPA, 1951.

The inescapable question that arises is stark: How many Chandigarh-style frauds would go undetected, unproven, and unpunished under the ECI’s new data destruction regime? By removing the most effective tool for exposing malpractice, the directive does not curb “malicious narratives”; it ensures that the official narrative, however flawed, is the only one that survives.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations: Restoring the Light of Transparency

A synthesis of the arguments presented leads to an inexorable conclusion. The directive is a colourable exercise of the ECI’s plenary powers under Article 324, as it is used not to fill a legislative gap for the sake of fairness, but to create an evidentiary vacuum that frustrates the statutory scheme of electoral justice established by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is a direct violation of the voter’s fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a), a right painstakingly developed by the Supreme Court in a series of landmark judgments from ADR (2002) to the Electoral Bonds (2024) case, which collectively establish transparency as a non-negotiable pillar of Indian democracy. The directive fails the test of arbitrariness under Article 14, as it is an irrational and grossly disproportionate measure that serves no legitimate public purpose sufficient to justify the complete destruction of a vital class of public records.

This issue must be viewed not as a one-off administrative misstep, but as a symptom of a worrying institutional trend towards opacity. Built upon the flawed legislative foundation of the amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the directive is part of a broader pattern where transparency is treated as a liability to be managed rather than an asset to be cherished. In a democracy, the answer to the potential misuse of information can never be the elimination of information itself. The path to strengthening public trust lies in greater openness, not in enforced obscurity. To reverse this dangerous trend and restore the light of transparency to India’s electoral process, the following actions are imperative.

The ECI must initiate a transparent, inclusive, and consultative process involving all relevant stakeholders—including all recognized political parties, civil society organizations working on electoral reforms, legal experts, and former election commissioners—to formulate a new, comprehensive “Election Records Retention and Access Policy.” This new framework should be codified in the rules and must:

1. • Establish a significantly longer, tiered retention period for all electronic records, with a minimum retention of at least two years for general elections, aligning with international best practices and providing ample time for litigation and research.
   • Create a secure, modern, and auditable digital archival system for this data to ensure its long-term integrity and preservation.
   • Establish clear, fair, and reasonable protocols for providing access to this data for the purposes of litigation, academic research, and public scrutiny. These protocols should incorporate necessary safeguards for individual voter privacy, such as court-mediated access or redaction, without resorting to the extreme measure of blanket destruction.

Upholding the sanctity of the electoral process is the shared responsibility of all democratic institutions. The ECI can best fulfil its constitutional mandate not by drawing a curtain over its processes, but by embracing transparency as the ultimate guarantor of its integrity and the public’s trust.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

Bihar: Sinister move by ECI as ‘intensive’ revision of electoral roles set to exclude vast majority of legitimate voters

Bihar 2025 Election: EC drops parental birth document requirement for 4.96 crore electors and their children in Bihar

The post The Erased Record: A constitutional challenge to the election commission’s 45-day data destruction mandate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Elections Under Scrutiny: Can We Trust the System? Kannan Gopinathan | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From delays in election announcements to alleged EVM tampering, leaders of the opposition, activists and people of Maharashtra are arguing that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has failed to uphold its constitutional duty of ensuring free and fair elections. Accusations range from strategic postponements favouring the BJP to technical irregularities in voting data that cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the results.

Adding to this controversy are the public protests and political demands for a return to paper ballots, with several leaders suggesting that EVMs have compromised electoral integrity. These claims are not isolated; they are part of a broader pattern of growing scepticism about the credibility of electronic voting systems in India.

Below we have provided a list of such instances of disproportionate vote surges and the constituency-level irregularities that have surfaced till now. As calls for transparency and accountability grow louder, the debate over the Maharashtra elections raises fundamental questions about the health of India’s democracy and the trustworthiness of its electoral processes.

Electoral irregularities: A crisis of credibility

The 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections have been marred by widespread allegations of vote discrepancies, procedural lapses, and potential manipulation of EVMs. These irregularities, some of which mentioned below, have cast a shadow over the Mahayuti alliance’s victory and raised critical questions about the integrity of the electoral process.

Issue: Unexplained vote discrepancies

1. Unusual surge in votes from Lok Sabha to Assembly Elections

1. • In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP contested 28 seats and received 14.9 million votes. Since each parliamentary seat includes six assembly segments, this means they averaged 88,713 votes per assembly segment.
   • However, in the Vidhan Sabha elections, where they contested 149 seats, the BJP’s vote count rose to 17.29 million votes, an increase of nearly 2.38 million votes.
   • This translates to an average of 116,064 votes per assembly seat, showing a sudden increase of over 28,000 votes per seat compared to the Lok Sabha. Such a sharp rise is unusual and has raised concerns about potential manipulation or unexplained factors influencing the results.

फार मोठा घोटाळा केला आहे

लोकसभा २०२४ मध्ये भाजपाला २८ लोकसभा सीट लढवून 14913914 मते होती

आणि आता विधानसभा १४९ जागा लढवून 17293650 मते आहेत
म्हणजे २३ लाख मते जास्त आहेत

पण विधानसभा सीट बरोबर बघत असाल तर लोकसभेला २८* ६= १६८ जागा लढवल्या

त्यांना प्रत्येक सीट मागे मतदान… pic.twitter.com/JLTIC5S5EK

— गजाभाऊ (@gajabhauX) November 24, 2024

2. Discrepancies in voting and counting in 95 constituencies

1. • Allegations have been raised that in 19 constituencies, more votes were counted than were actually cast, suggesting the possibility of extra votes being added to EVMs.
   • Furthermore, there are claims that in 76 constituencies, fewer votes were counted than cast, indicating potential tampering or technical faults.
   • While in 193 constituencies, the vote counts matched the polling data, the irregularities in almost one-third of the state’s constituencies cannot be ignored.
   • Detailed booth-level inspections (through Form 20) may uncover even more discrepancies, highlighting the need for an immediate and thorough investigation.

The votes ballotted and the votes counted have been found different in 95 assembly seats in Maharashtra.
Will @CEO_Maharashtra and @ECISVEEP care to explain or will this be dismissed too? pic.twitter.com/JGgEz3WO86

— Priyanka Chaturvedi (@priyankac19) November 25, 2024

Issue: Constituency-level irregularities

1. Constituencies with fewer votes counted

Regions such as Nagpur Central, Shirpur, Aurangabad West, and Baramati show significant shortfalls in the votes counted compared to those polled. This pattern suggests the possibility of EVM malfunctions, mismanagement, or intentional suppression of votes.

2. Constituencies with excess votes counted

In stark contrast, areas like Aurangabad East, Vaijapur, Malegaon Central, and Boisar reported higher votes counted than recorded during polling. These anomalies suggest potential manipulation of voting machines or interference during the vote-counting process.

The votes ballotted and the votes counted have been found different in 95 assembly seats in Maharashtra.
Will @CEO_Maharashtra and @ECISVEEP care to explain or will this be dismissed too? pic.twitter.com/JGgEz3WO86

— Priyanka Chaturvedi (@priyankac19) November 25, 2024

Issue: Allegations of EVM manipulation

1. EVM anomalies and discrepant results: In Avadhan village, Congress candidate Kunal Baba Patil reportedly received zero votes, despite public protests from villagers affirming that they had voted for him. This raises critical concerns about the reliability of EVMs in accurately recording votes.

EVM Fraud

Congress candidate Kunal Baba Patil was polled 0 votes. 70% of the villagers came out to protest against ECI.

Avadhan village, Maharashtra.#BanEVM

pic.twitter.com/04SvIulwKV

— Priyamwada (@PriaINC) November 25, 2024

Further investigations revealed variations in vote data stored in EVMs on polling day (November 20) versus counting day (November 23). Such discrepancies point to vulnerabilities in the EVM system and the possibility of tampering during the interim period.

1. Suspicious routers found near polling stations: Reports emerged of routers being discovered outside polling stations, raising alarms about potential external interference with EVM data. Police investigations are underway, but the mere presence of such devices suggests laxity in ensuring the security of election infrastructure.

यामुळे निकाल बदलतो! मतदान केंद्रा बाहेर सापडले राऊटर पोलीस तपास चालू…!

⁦@ShivSenaUBT_⁩
⁦@INCMaharashtra⁩ @NCPspeaks pic.twitter.com/5Cf3kT9Lac

— विवेक विनायक जाधव (@VivekJadhavOff1) November 23, 2024

Issue: Unusual voting pattern in Nanded Lok Sabha by-election

In the Nanded Lok Sabha by-election, held alongside the Maharashtra Assembly elections, Congress secured victory in the parliamentary seat but lost all six assembly segments within the same constituency.

Despite polling simultaneously, it has been provided Congress received 5.87 lakh votes for the Lok Sabha seat but only 4.27 lakh votes across the six assembly segments—a shortfall of 1,59,323 votes. This translates to an average of 26,500 Congress voters per assembly seat who seemingly switched their preference at the assembly level.

The party lost the six assembly seats by a combined margin of 1,84,597 votes, a striking contradiction to their success in the Lok Sabha seat. The anomaly raises serious questions about voter behaviour, as it seems unlikely that such a significant portion of voters would favour the BJP-led alliance for the assembly while supporting Congress in the parliamentary race.

Congress has called for an investigation into this unexpected and puzzling voting pattern.

महाराष्ट्र में विधानसभा के साथ साथ नांदेड़ लोकसभा का भी उपचुनाव था। इस लोकसभा हलके में छ: विधानसभा की सीट आती हैं।

कांग्रेस सभी छ: विधानसभा सीट हार गई है, लेकिन लोकसभा का चुनाव जीत गई है।

ऐसा इसलिए हुआ है कि लोकसभा सीट पर कांग्रेस को 1,59,323 वोट ज़्यादा मिले हैं! छ: विधानसभा… pic.twitter.com/fmeCWlbHR8

— Gurdeep Singh Sappal (@gurdeepsappal) November 24, 2024

Issue: Unexplained rise in voters in Karad (South) constituency over six months:

Within the Satara Lok Sabha constituency in western Maharashtra is the Karad (South) Assembly Constituency (AC). The Lok Sabha Elections 2024, six months before saw a total voting of 1,98,633 votes. Udayanraj Bhosale got 92,814 votes and Shashikant Shinde 92,198 votes. Six months later, the Vidhan Sabha Karad South Constituency had a total voting of 2,40, 743 Votes, that is approximately 41,000 extra votes. The victorious Atul Baba Bhjosale got 1, 39,505 votes and Prithviraj Chavan 1,00,150 votes. This means that the 40,000 plus that had miraculously increased in six months (votes/voters) all went to the winning candidate!

Now, if we compare this to the 2019 data, Vidhan Sabha Karad South AC had 2,10, 436 Votes/Voters. The winning candidate Prithviraj Chavan got 92,296 votes and Bhosale 83,166 votes. Ironically the six month surge of 41,000 votes has been unmatched! Votes that have not increased in five years (Vidhan Sabha 2019 and Lok Sabha 2024) have increased in the past six months. When political parties (opposition) collect the booth-wise updated data they will be able to study where and in which booths these voters have increased and decreased. Then there may be some answers/accountability?

कराड (दक्षिण) गमतीशीर थ्रेड

१) सातारा लोकसभा अंतर्गत कराड (दक्षिण) विधानसभा मतदारसंघात 6 महिन्यापूर्वी लोकसभेला झालेलं एकूण मतदान होतं 1,98,633

(पक्ष बाजूला ठेवूया)
तिथे पडलेली मते.
उदयनराजे भोसले : 92,814
शशिकांत शिंदे : 92,198

1/N pic.twitter.com/vMHji2B2Cn

— ajatashatru58 (@ajatashatru58) November 24, 2024

Opposition raises more accusation against ECI- delay in poling date, EVMs, lack of clarity

Leaders of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) accused the ECI of delaying the announcement of poll dates, giving the BJP-led Mahayuti alliance a strategic advantage. Congress leader Supriya Shrinate had criticised the timing of the elections, claiming the delay allowed the ruling coalition to launch populist schemes like the Ladki Bahin Yojana, influencing voter sentiment. Shrinate expressed her disappointment with the results, noting, “Our campaign was strong, but maybe the public expects more from us. We will deliver on those expectations.”

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut went further, questioning the legitimacy of the results. He remarked, “This is not the people’s mandate. Something is fishy in these election results.” Raut cited the disproportionate seat distribution—BJP securing 125 seats, Ajit Pawar’s NCP faction 40, and Shinde’s Shiv Sena 60—as improbable, suggesting that such an outcome did not align with public sentiment. He demanded a re-election using paper ballots, saying, “Let this result stay, but conduct the election again with paper ballots, and then show us the same result.”

The integrity of EVMs has come under intense scrutiny, with many of the opposition leaders citing them as a central issue in the election’s credibility:

1. Discrepancies in counting:

1. • Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) leader Fahad Ahmad accused the BJP of manipulating results in Anushakti Nagar. He claimed he was leading after 17 rounds of counting, but EVMs with 99% charge showed his opponent, Sana Malik, leading after additional rounds. Ahmad alleged that this discrepancy indicated deliberate tampering.
   • Similar complaints were raised in other constituencies, with many pointing out irregularities in vote tallies between polling day and counting day.

After round 16 and a steady lead in all rounds.. EVM machines that were 99% charged were opened and BJP supported NCP Ajit Pawar candidate took a lead .. @ECISVEEP @SpokespersonECI this is rank manipulation. We demand a recount of rounds 16, 17, 18 and 19. pic.twitter.com/Z2JuUyIQqc

— Fahad Ahmad (@FahadZirarAhmad) November 23, 2024

2. Broader criticism of EVM reliability:

1. • Congress leader Udit Raj bluntly stated, “As long as there are EVMs, elections cannot be fair.” He argued that the trends in Maharashtra clearly indicated tampering, attributing the BJP’s victory to the EVM system rather than a genuine mandate.
   • Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi echoed these concerns, stating that people repeatedly warned about EVM vulnerabilities during the campaign. “A question mark definitely arises on these elections,” she said.

     3.Calls for paper ballot reforms:

1. • Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu joined the chorus of critics, urging a return to paper ballots for future elections. His stance aligns with concerns raised by Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara, who highlighted the potential security risks of electronic voting systems.

Electoral system under scrutiny

Rising doubts about the credibility of the ECI have intensified as opposition leaders question its impartiality. People have argued that the institution appears to favour the ruling party, with its decisions allegedly timed and tailored to bolster the BJP’s chances. The delay in poll announcements is viewed as a strategic manoeuvre to allow Mahayuti leaders to roll out last-minute voter-wooing schemes.

In addition to administrative biases, opposition parties allege that EVMs were compromised to alter the outcomes. Discrepancies in vote tallies in 95 constituencies—where some EVMs recorded more votes than polled and others fewer—have raised suspicions of large-scale manipulation. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut remarked, “They have done some ‘gadbad’ (mess). They have stolen some of our seats.”

There are far too many questions being raised about discrepancy between votes polled and counted and there are even video clips of villagers apparently protesting. It is the @ECISVEEP’s duty as a tax payer funded organisation to put all public doubts to rest. This involves the…

— Saba Naqvi (@_sabanaqvi) November 25, 2024

Impact on public trust and democracy

The controversy surrounding the Maharashtra elections has shaken public confidence in the electoral system. The ECI’s perceived partisanship and refusal to address these concerns transparently further erode faith in the democratic process. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut encapsulated this sentiment, saying, “The people of Maharashtra are not dishonest. This outcome does not reflect their will.”

Amid these allegations, demands for accountability and transparency have grown louder:

• Re-election with paper ballots: Opposition leaders insist that reverting to manual voting is essential to restore credibility.
• Independent audit of EVMs: A forensic analysis of EVM discrepancies in key constituencies could uncover potential tampering.
• ECI’s role under question: The commission’s failure to provide satisfactory explanations for delays, EVM anomalies, and voter grievances has drawn widespread criticism. As a taxpayer-funded body, the ECI is expected to uphold neutrality and public trust.

Related:

UP by-elections: Reports of serious disturbances and disruption of voters

VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections

Elections amidst glitches: Maharashtra’s crucial poll day unfolds with complaints of barricading and EVM glitches

The post Democracy in question: Allegations of bias, EVM manipulation, and questions of legitimacy post 2024 Maha election result appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These 102 civil servants, who alleged to have no political affiliation, appealed to the higher judiciary, the election commission, chief electoral officers in every state and returning officers in every district to discharge their duties in a transparent and responsible matter.

In the statement, they wrote “To retain the faith of the ordinary citizen in these constitutional institutions vested with the onerous responsibility of the free and fair conduct of elections, it is necessary that these institutions must not only be fair but also appear to be fair.  They must reassure the citizens of the fairness and integrity of the process through their consistently transparent and accountable functioning, and by continuously sharing information with the electorate.”

Highlighting the multiple concerns that had been raised by the citizenry throughout the ongoing election process, instances of unlawful voting, people finding their names missing from the voters’ lists, refusal of the ECI disclose the exact numbers of votes cast in each constituency, and inaction against hate speeches by senior leaders of ruling party, the civil servants prompted the ECI to address and provide explanations to the public upon the same.

The statement provided “It would have been fitting for the Election Commission to publicly explain actions taken, and not taken, by the Commission to address these problems and allay the fears of the electorate. They should still do this without further delay and in a transparent manner.”

In addition to berating the ECI for hesitating in their duties, the civil servants then emphasized upon the great task that lies ahead- the counting of votes casted and the announcement of results. In addition to this, they urged the President of India, Draupadi Murmu, to follow the established democratic precedents in the event of a hung parliament and follow the path of the Constitutional values while discharging her onerous duties.

The complete statement can be read below:

CCG OPEN STATEMENT ON 2024 LOK SABHA ELECTIONS

25 May 2024

We are a group of former civil servants who have served the Central and State
governments in various capacities. We have no affiliation with any political party but are
strongly committed to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution of India.

June 4, 2024 will be the final chapter of the eighteenth general elections to the Parliament of the world’s most populous country; the largest democratic contest that the world has ever witnessed. During this massive exercise, more than anyone else, it is India’s working poor, its farmers, its women and its youth who have affirmed their abiding faith in India’s democracy by queueing up in large numbers even in the searing heat of summer.

Elections are a particularly testing time for institutions that are constitutionally vested with the responsibility of ensuring the integrity and fairness of elections. These include the higher judiciary, the election commission, chief electoral officers in every state and returning officers in every district.

To retain the faith of the ordinary citizen in these constitutional institutions vested with the onerous responsibility of the free and fair conduct of elections, it is necessary that these institutions must not only be fair but also appear to be fair.  They must reassure the citizens of the fairness and integrity of the process through their consistently transparent and accountable functioning, and by continuously sharing information with the electorate.

During the 2024 general elections, concerns have been raised at many points about the fairness of the elections. These relate to fears that the EVM and VVPAT machines can be tampered with, instances of single persons unlawfully voting on behalf of many voters (some videos of this are in circulation), of many people, especially of vulnerable groups, finding their names missing from the voters’ lists, of the inexplicable refusal of the Election Commission of India to disclose the exact numbers of votes cast in each constituency, and of little visible action against hate speech targeting both minorities and the opposition parties by senior leaders of the ruling party. It would have been fitting for the Election Commission to publicly explain actions taken, and not taken, by the Commission to address these problems and allay the fears of the electorate. They should still do this without further delay and in a transparent manner.

It pains us to say that no Election Commission in the past has been as reluctant as the present one to discharge its duties, despite violations being repeatedly brought to its attention by responsible organisations and respected members of society. We hope they will not continue to show this disregard in the time that is remaining.

In the run-up to the counting, immense care needs to be taken for the safe custody of the EVM machines in ways that involve all the competing candidates and parties. Returning officers need to commit themselves to announcing the results of the counting of votes in every case without any delay.

In the event of a hung parliament, onerous responsibilities will be placed upon the shoulders of the President of India. We are sure that she will follow the established democratic precedent of first inviting the pre-poll alliance that garnered the largest number of seats. Also, that she would endeavour to preempt the possibilities of horse-trading.

On behalf of the citizens of India, we seek in humility to remind each of the authorities and institutions charged with the integrity of the process of democratic government formation of their paramount duty to abide and uphold the Constitution of India. We would like to remind them of the oath they have taken in this regard at the time of their assumption of office.

We bring forth the luminous pledge that India’s first citizen, the President of India, takes to “ preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law ” and to devote herself “ to the service and the well-being of the people of India ”.  We are sure that this will be her guiding light.

SATYAMEVA JAYATE 

Constitutional Conduct Group (102 signatories, as below)

The post Ensure impeccable, responsible discharge of duties on counting day, post-result period: Ex-civil servants to ECI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 22, the Election Commission of India (ECI) sent two directives, one each to BJP national president J.P. Nadda and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, asking them to be “dutiful towards special responsibility of Star Campaigners of the party and issue formal notes to them to maintain decorum in their utterances.” The latest directives were issued after it received responses of the parties following the MCC notices that were issued to BJP and Congress on April 25 on the complaints submitted by the rival parties against each other. In the direction issued to BJP, the Commission has asked the party to refrain from campaigning along “religious/ communal lines” or to make statements “which may which may divide the society”. Similarly, it directed Congress to avoid making “potentially divisive statements” regarding the socio-economic composition of Defence forces, and statements which give false impression “that the Constitution of India may be abolished or sold”. Notably, the directives did not name the speaker(s) of the impugned speech (es) as the ECI kept identifying the speaker(s) as “a star campaigner of your party”, “another Star Campaigner”, “yet another Star Campaigner”, “the same Star Campaigner”, and “many Star Campaigners”.

In a general observation common to both the directives, the Commission observed that “Elections are a process when a political parties, not only contest to win, but also avails the opportunity to present themselves in their ideal best for the voting community to experience, emulate and build hopes on. The second part constitutes the more precious heritage of Indian elections and our electoral democracy and this should not be allowed to be weakened by anyone, including your party”. The ECI also cautioned that the utterances of the concerned politicians “follow patterns and create narratives which can be damaging beyond the MCC period.”

Moreover, the ECI has found the responses given by the parties untenable and said that the violations continue unabated even after the formal notices were issued to the parties on April 25 this year. As a corrective measure it has asked the party presidents to ensure compliance with the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and ECI Advisory.

Directions to BJP

The Commission’s directive to BJP notes that the response sent by BJP on May 13 to the ECI with regard to the MCC violation notice maintains that the statements of its Star Campaigners relied on “facts” to expose the malintent of INC citing the statements made by INC campaigners about institutional survey, Sam Pitroda’s inheritance tax remark, and other video links. The direction cites at least 15 statements and remarks made by BJP’s campaigners attacking INC and opposition INDIA alliance covering the thematic issues of Ram Temple, Hindu religion, SC/ST quotas and reservation, Muslim appeasement, and the allegations made against INC, accusing the latter of supporting Pakistan and receiving funding from terror groups.

The directive highlighted several impugned statements of the Star Campaigners of the ruling party, for example, it cited various complaints made by the INC:

1. “Vide INC complaint dated 26.04.2024 it has been alleged that a star campaigner of your party made following statement: ‘Yeh aapki sampati ka baantne ka kaam kisko karenge, Bangladeshi ghuspaithion ko, Rohingyas ko, jo videshi aaye hai ghuspaithiyein, usko kar denge yeh log. Kya yeh Hindustan isko swikar kar paayega kya.’”
2. “INC filed a complaint dated 06.05.2024 against another Star Campaigner inter-alia alleging that: He with the malafide attempt to incite and provoke the general public against the INC labelled a particular religious community as ‘terrorists’ and falsely accused that the INC was promoting the interests of such religious communities to the exclusion of the general public; and fomenting social tensions within the society by creating a divide based on religion, caste and classes.”
3. “Another complaint dated 06.05.2024 was filed by INC alleging that your party’s star campaigner: “falsely claimed that the Congress would grant reservation to a particular religious community over the SC, ST and OBC communities by changing the Constitution”.
4. “Vide INC complaint dated 12.05.2024, it has been alleged that yet another Star Campaigner has allegedly delivered a statement: “with the intention of (i) invoking religious sentiments of general public; (ii) misleading the voters with their allegations that the Indian National Congress (INC) did not support the construction of the Ram Mandir and that the INC was deriving its funding from terrorist organizations.”
5. “The INC, vide complaint dated 15.05.2024 complained that a Star Campaigner made the following statement: ‘Aur isiliye jab chunav aa gaye hain Modi ji ka virod do hi log kar rahe hain, ek jo ram drohi hain aur dusra jo Pakistan ka samarthak hain.’”

The ECI observed that the party has made a generic assertion that its Star Campaigners never made statements not based on facts or targeting specific individuals, without denying the fact that such statements were made in their public campaign speeches. Summarising the position of BJP, the ECI directive notes that “your reply invokes a unilateral drawing of inferences and interpretations of alleged previous statements of opposite party’s Star Campaigners. However, such response ought not to raise or, aggravate anxiousness amongst citizens/electors on the basis of ascribable identity by use of suggestive expressions…” The Commission also observed that as a ruling party, it has an extra responsibility to conform with the provisions of the MCC. As the ECI found BJP’s response “not tenable”, it directed the BJP party president JP Nadda to direct all its star campaigners to refrain from making statements prohibited under MCC and which may divide the society on religious or communal lines. The Commission said that is expects both the parties to “fully align the campaign methods to the practical aspects of the composite and sensitive fabric of India.”

Directions to Congress

The directive issued to Congress says that the party’s defence of the statements made by its Star Campaigners relies on “3 broad axis”, namely, (i) denial of fact as alleged per se; (ii) arguing that the statements are not violative of MCC as they are mere rebuttal of previous accusations or in some cases de-contextualised and (iii) MCC provides a special footing to opposition party and therefore the statements have to be adjudged on a different footing. Notably, the Indian National Congress (INC) had responded to the ECI on May 6, following the notice issued to it on 25 April this year on BJP’s complaint.

In its latest direction to INC, the ECI observed that the party’s response to its April notice highlighted the “repeated” and “egregious violations” by the ruling BJP and defended its own statements as being taken out of context. Taking into consideration the role of opposition party, the directive reads, “the MCC already takes into account the unevenness of power and authority between Opposition and the Ruling Party…however does not allow unlimited extra space to the opposition, bordering on an immunity from MCC provisions.”

The Election Commission cited 5 speeches that were alleged to be violative of the MCC, these include speeches made by INC’s Star Campaigners accusing BJP of promoting “one nation, one language”, attacking the PM over the Agnipath Scheme, alleging that BJP has an intention to change the Constitution, and suggesting that BJP discriminates against Adivasi’s, Dalits, and poor.

Against the statement made by a Star Campaigner of INC that BJP might change the Constitution, the directive observed that the party president is aware that the Members of Parliament take oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and therefore, “making statements that anyone can either abolish or sell or tear apart the Constitution of India etc. is alleged to be instilling fear in the mind of voters about an uncertain future and an attempt to spread anarchy in the country.” Furthermore, on the critique of the Agnipath Scheme, it said that the MCC has a specific prohibition against use of armed forces for campaigning purposes.

As the ECI did not find the party’s response tenable, it asked INC president to direct all its Star Campaigners to refrain from “giving statements which give false impression that the Constitution of India may be abolished or sold” as well as to desist “from indulging in any political propaganda involving activities of the Defence forces and not to make potentially divisive statements regarding socio-economic composition of Defence forces”.  It also asked the opposition party to strictly follow the MCC, RPA and ECI advisory, as well as to inform its Star Campaigners regarding the same.

Notably, in both the directives, ECI observed that the speeches are alleged to not only violate the provisions of MCC but also borderlines corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits candidates from making false statements affecting the candidature of other candidate(s) in the fray.

Related:

United Against Hate: CJP’s Battle for a Hate-Free Election in 2024! | CJP

Why Modi’s poll histrionics accusing Congress of potentially fracturing away SC/ST quotas to Muslims is a spurious claim?

Several instances of hate speech in March and April mar the election cycle, demonise religious minorities before the polls | CJP

The post ECI issues ‘directions’ to BJP and Congress following the responses from both the parties over MCC violations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As the Model Code of Conduct came into force on 16 March, authorities, especially, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been flooded with complaints regarding violations of the provisions of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)[1], the Representation of the People Act, 1951[2], and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Bangalore based non-profit organisation Law and Policy Research Institute (LAPRI) has filed 37 such complaints till May 12 with the Election Commission of India (ECI) and in some cases it has even tagged police authorities, asking the authorities to take action against the reported violations. No action has been taken in 19 of these complaints, with FIR registered in 5 cases.

Four complaints each has been filed against Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, and Navneet Rana, with three each against Himanta Biswa Sharma and BJP Karnataka, and two each against Yogi Adityanath and Raja Singh.

The complaints are filed for violation various provisions relating to hate speech, disinformation, and appeal to religion for the purpose of seeking votes. Disinclination to act against these complaints concerning hate speech, disinformation campaign, and religious appeals have raised serious concerns about the conduct of ECI. Additionally, in the absence of any substantive action by the poll body, as revealed from the LAPRI data, such vicious speeches and activities continue unabated, unduly affecting the level playing field and benefitting the ruling regime.

Section 123 (3) of the RPA considers it to be a corrupt practice if a candidate or his agent asks a voter “to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem…”

Section 123 (3A) of the RPA notes that corrupt practice would involve “The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.”

Section 125 of the RPA reads that “Any person who in connection with an election under this Act promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred, between different classes of the citizens of India shall he punishable, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

A detailed LAPRI report can be found here:

[1] https://www.eci.gov.in/mcc/

[2] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2096/5/a1951-43.pdf

Related:

United Against Hate: CJP’s Battle for a Hate-Free Election in 2024! | CJP

Why Modi’s poll histrionics accusing Congress of potentially fracturing away SC/ST quotas to Muslims is a spurious claim?

Several instances of hate speech in March and April mar the election cycle, demonise religious minorities before the polls | CJP

The post LAPRI files 37 complaints to authorities as on 12 May for violations of MCC and RPA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Two and a half months into the 18^th Lok Sabha elections, a detailed analysis of data from the website of Election Commission of India (ECI), reveals that the poll body has issued 16 notices and orders for the violations of the Model Code of Conduct and relevant electoral laws since November 13, 2023. Unsurprisingly, the Congress and its leaders have been at the receiving end of such notices/orders with 6 in all, followed by BRS and BJP with 3 each, AAP with 2. One notice each has been issued to the Congress ruled Karnataka Government and Telangana Chief Electoral Officer (for violation of the MCC and stipulated conditions by BRS leader T. Harish Rao by publicising Rythu Bandhu scheme during the MCC period!). Data on previous notices prior to November 20923 is mysteriously missing from its website under “Current Issues” category

Where and when did the ECI issue notices for violation of the MCC?

Two notices and one order were issued against BJP, with one notice each being sent to State President, Delhi BJP (Virendra Sachdeva) and National President, Bharatiya Janta Party, JP Nadda on November 21, 2023 and April 25, 2024, respectively. The November 2023 notice was sent on the basis of the complaint filed by AAP, alleging that BJP Delhi’s social media handle had posted morphed images and videos to “ruin” the image of AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal. The April 2024 notice was issued after several political parties complained to ECI, highlighting Modi’s Banswara speech in which he referred to Muslims as “infiltrators” and “those having more children”, and accused Congress of contriving to take away the wealth of Hindus to redistribute it to Muslims. In a separate order issued on May 7, 2024, ECI asked ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) to take down the video uploaded on the ‘X’ by the account of Karnataka BJP (@BJP4Karnataka) targeting the minority and claiming that Rahul Gandhi and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah were giving funds to people from minority communities. The Karnataka BJP has however escaped from being served a notice by the ECI.

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received two notices, with one delivered to the National Convenor, AAP, Arvind Kejriwal and the other sent to Atishi (AAP MLA from Kalkaji) in her individual but political capacity; the notices were delivered on November 14, 2023 and April 5, 2024, respectively. Both the notices were issued after BJP filed the complaints with the poll body. In the first complaint, BJP alleged that AAP’s social media posts scurrilously targeted PM Modi by spreading “false propaganda” and associating Modi with Industrialist Gautam Adani, suggesting quid pro quo relationship. In their second complaint, BJP allegedly that Atishi gave a baseless and false statement that she was lured by BJP to join their party.

Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) received three notices, dated November 24 and 25 in 2023, and one issued on May 1, 2024. All the three complaints were filed by Congress, on the basis of which notices were issued by ECI. In two of these notices, dated November 24 and May 1, the nature of the MCC violation pertained to the use of derogatory, provoking, slanderous statements against Congress. The other notice was issued in relation to the breach of the MCC as the then ruling BRS member KT Rama Rao politicised his visit at T-works, where he was found discussing about the recruitments and prospects of government jobs in Telangana.

Unsurprisingly, given the obvious orientation of the current ECI which is clearly partisan, Indian National Congress has topped the chart with ECI issuing six notices/orders to the party for the violation of the MCC and electoral laws in the given period between November 13, 2023 and May 8, 2024. The first notice was issued on November 14, 2023 against Priyanka Gandhi, general secretary of the AICC, for her statement suggesting that state-run BHEL was outsourced by Modi to its industrialist friends’. The BJP complaint had flagged her statement as unverified and false.

Two notices were issued on November 22, 2023 against the state (Rajasthan) and national head of Congress party (Govind Singh Dotasra and Mallikarjun Kharge, respectively) for advertising electoral promises in newspapers and on the social media platform, which the Election Commission considered violative of the MCC.

The very next day, on November 23, 2023, ECI sent a notice to Rahul Gandhi, Member of Parliament and star campaigner for the party, for his election speech in Rajasthan, where he compared Modi to pick pocket and called him “Panauti”. Furthermore, Gandhi had alleged in his speech that in the past nine years Modi government waived off loans’ worth lakhs of crores for big billionaires. Taking note of the BJP complaint, ECI flagged his speech as violative of MCC, Section 123 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) and EC Advisory.

On April 25, 2024, INC president received another notice, this time against the remarks made by Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge (the president of the INC). The BJP complaint alleged that the speeches delivered by Gandhi in Kottayam (Kerala) and Tamil Nadu falsely accused BJP of promoting the idea of “one language” and “one religion”, giving the impression that BJP is against the people and culture of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The complaint accused Gandhi of indulging in linguistic and cultural divide, and said that his statements were false and misleading. Similarly, BJP had flagged Kharge for his remarks implying that he was discriminated against by BJP due to his Scheduled Caste status, and therefore not invited for Ram Temple ceremony.

The sixth complaint was received on April 26, 2024, on the complaint filed by BRS member, alleging that Congress made unsubstantiated allegations against BRS party and party member KT Rama Rao. The ECI noted that it “strongly censures” the said misconduct.

Why is ECI abdicating its role by inaction and no notice against the ruling BJP for its strong of hate speech?

The ECI has broad powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, including the power to supervise the machinery of elections throughout the country to ensure free and fair elections. Ensuring that elections are free and fair also means that they are a level playing field, untainted and unaffected by a deeply polarised public and political discourse. A grave question arises on whether the ECI is wilfully ignoring hate speeches and communal remarks delivered by members of the ruling party, given that the ECI can suo moto take cognizance of such instances even in the absence of formal complaints forthcoming?

The analysis of the notices sent by ECI to political parties and their leaders for poll code violations shows that BJP (which received only three notices as opposed to six sent to the largest opposition party) is either actually committing fewer violations of the MCC and the Representation of the People Act (RPA), or, as can be understood from a bare listing of the violations listed below, the poll body is looking away from the brazen violations.

Consider the following remarks made by BJP leaders since the MCC came into force on March 16, 2024 (MCC is effective from the date of announcement of poll schedule till its conclusion):

1. On March 17, 2024, Tathagata Roy, BJP member and former governor of Meghalaya, had taken to post on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, to urge the home ministry to check genitalia of male candidates seeking citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act to confirm their religious background. Notably, CAA excludes the Muslim community from attaining fast tracked citizenship if India. Roy said that “The test of the religious status of a male must be circumcision or otherwise.”

2. On April 19, 2024, while campaigning for BJP in Uttar Pradesh’s Amroha Lok Sabha seat, PM Modi targeted sitting MP and Congress candidate Danish Ali, accusing him of having objections in chanting “Bharat Mata ki jai”. He said, “Will a person, who cannot accept Bharat Mata ki jai, look good in the Indian Parliament? Should such a person who does not like to pay gratitude to his motherland be allowed to enter Parliament.”

3. On April 21, 2024, in Banswara district of Rajasthan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi suggested that if the Congress comes to power, it would redistribute wealth of people to Muslims.

The excerpt from his speech reads, “…my mothers and sisters, they will not even leave your ‘Mangalsutra’. They can go to that level.” “The Congress manifesto says they will calculate the gold with mothers and sisters, get information about it and then distribute that property. They will distribute it to whom — Manmohan Singh’s government had said that Muslims have the first right on the country’s assets.” “Earlier, when their (Congress) government was in power, they had said that Muslims have the first right on the country’s assets. This means to whom will this property be distributed? It will be distributed among those who have more children.” “It will be distributed to the infiltrators. Should your hard-earned money go to the infiltrators? Do you approve of this?”

4. On April 21, 2024, at Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath promoted the conspiracy theory of Love Jihad during an election rally.

Targeting Congress, Adityanath said, “Sisters and brothers, I ponder sometimes that even (our) mother cows were handed over to cattle smugglers and butchers, when jihadi activities were given free hand. What kind of incident had taken place with Bhuneshwar Sahu? I congratulate the public of Chhattisgarh for electing his father Ishwar Sahu as an MLA, paying a real tribute to Bhuneshwar Sahu. Bhuneshwar Sahu made only one mistake, that he opposed love jihad and Congress’s appeasement politics.”

5. On April 22, 2024, during an election speech, Yogi Adityanath targeted Opposition leaders for allegedly reading the Fatiha (a short sura of the Quran considered an essential element of ritual prayer) on the graves of criminals and gangsters.

Adityanath remarked, “These people are reading Fatiha on graves of gangsters, you must give them five more years so they can keep doing so. The policies of the SP, Congress and BSP have jeopardised citizens’ safety.” “Lord Ram returned to Ayodhya after 500 years of struggle to find his abode in the grand temple of Ayodhya, it happened under the BJP government.” 

6. On April 23, 2024, in Amroha, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath repeated PM Narendra Modi’s communal talking points by repeating that Congress will redistribute country’s resources and wealth among Muslims and falsely claimed that Congress party intends to implement Sharia Law.

Adityanath said, “The Congress and its allies have betrayed the country and have once again come to you with their false manifesto. If you look at the Congress’ manifesto, they say that if they form a government, we will implement Sharia law.” “You tell me, will this country be run by the Constitution made by Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar or by Shariat?” “They say that we will again restore personal law. These people will implement Sharia law.” “Look at the condition of these shameless people. On one hand, they are eying on your property and on the other hand they are making the mafia and criminals their necklace and reciting Fatiha in their name.” 

7. On April 23, 2024, Narendra Modi delivered a speech during the election rally in Surguja, Chhattisgarh. He said, “Congress wants to loot away your wealth, even your gold. You all know whom they will give it to. You know.” “I want to unveil the “Muslim League” thinking of Congress. The Manifesto of Congress has taken up the idea of the Muslim League.” PM Modi repeated this charge in his April 25 rally held in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. 

8. On April 26, 2024, at Guna, Madhya Pradesh, Home Minister Amit Shah used similar words for targeting the Muslim community and the opposition Congress party. He said, “They want to bring back Muslim personal law. Do you think this country can be run by Shariat Law? Do you think we should let them bring back triple talaq? Till the time BJP government is there, we will not let them bring back personal law. This country will only be run by UCC (Uniform Civil Code).” “We say that the resources of our country belong to SC, ST and OBC. They say that Muslims have the first right to every resource.” 

9. On April 26, 2024, in Malda, West Bengal, PM Modi attacked TMC and Congress, and alleged that “They want to bring in a very dangerous law which will take away the mangalsutras and gold of Adivasi women. They will take away the property of every citizen and give away a big chunk of it to their vote bank.” “The TMC party works towards bringing infiltrators from Bangladesh into the country. They let these infiltrators take over your land. And now Congress wants to give away your wealth to such infiltrators.” 

10. On April 27, 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, addressing a rally in Karnataka’s Belagavi, claimed that “They (Congress) side with Aurangzeb parties, the man who killed cows and broke Temples…… Congress will take your wealth and distribute it to their ‘vote bank’.”  

11. On April 30, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a public meeting at Alladurga in Telangana’s Medak district as part of the ongoing election campaign. In his election speech, PM Modi said, “The Constitution makers…decided against religion-based quota and made it only for the SC/ST/BCs. But the Congress party and its ‘prince’ (Rahul Gandhi), are undermining the Indian Constitution by snatching away the rights of the marginalised sections by bringing quota for the Muslims through the backdoor for their vote bank politics.” “As long as I am alive, I will not allow…reservations for the SC/STs and BCs to be distributed to the Muslims at any cost”. “It is not Modi who built Ram Temple but your vote…” 

12. On May 1, at Hatkanangale, Maharashtra, UP CM Yogi Adityanath delivering an election speech said, “Congress wants to impose similar taxes…as Aurangzeb had done in his time. Will you accept this? These children of Aurangzeb are doing the work of rickshaw pullers in the current scenario and Congress wants to bring in inheritance laws.” “In the Congress Manifesto, these people have mentioned that they will let the minority communities eat as they please…These Congress people want to allow cow slaughter in our Maharashtra, in our India.” “By giving reservation to Muslims, the Congress party wants to Islamitize the country.” 

13. On May 2, in Anand, Gujarat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi alleged that ““[The opposition alliance] is asking Muslims to do ‘vote jihad’. This is new because we have so far heard about ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad’.” “I hope you all know what the meaning of jihad is and against whom it is waged.” 

The content of the aforementioned speeches clearly reveal that the speakers not only violated the MCC, but also the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), which is legally enforceable. The ECI did not issue any notice against these speeches except for the one delivered on April 21 in Banswara, Rajasthan. Pertinently, the Banswara speech delivered by Modi seems to be only the starting point in the series of what may be called hate speeches given by the members of the ruling party. The said speeches clearly violate the MCC and the electoral laws as can be understood from the provisions of the MCC and the RPA.

ECI in its notices to political parties has consistently quoted that “Clause 2 of Part I ‘General Conduct’ of Model Code of Conduct for the guidance of Political Parties and Candidates’ provides that: – ‘Criticism of other political parties, when made, shall be confined to their policies and programme, past record and work. Parties and Candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the leaders or workers of other parties. Criticism of other parties or their workers based on unverified allegations or distortion shall be avoided.’”

Similarly, Section 123 (3) of the RPA considers it to be a corrupt practice if a candidate or his agent asks a voter “to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem…”

Section 123 (3A) of the RPA notes that corrupt practice would involve “The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.”

Section 125 of the RPA reads that “Any person who in connection with an election under this Act promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred, between different classes of the citizens of India shall he punishable, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

While the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) does not have a statutory backing, making it legally non-binding, it nonetheless serves as a moral code for parties during the elections. Furthermore, ECI can temporarily ban political leaders and candidates from political campaigning in case of violation of the MCC. As for the RPA, it has a legal backing, and violation of Section 125 (Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election) carries punishment of 3 years of imprisonment or fine, or both.

Thus, it can be clearly concluded that, even after the flagrant violation of electoral norms and rules by the speakers as evident from the aforementioned provisions of the MCC and RPA, ECI has been reticent in its conduct. In addition, the conduct of the poll body goes against the rule of law, as evident from the disproportionate number of notices sent to opposition parties as compared to the ruling party. Furthermore, by ignoring plethora of hate speeches delivered by the ruling party members, the poll body seems to be far away from its stated ambition of ensuring “free and fair” elections.

Notably, the response of the ECI to these speeches, if at all forthcoming, is unlikely to hold these speakers accountable. The Indian Express had recently reported that in its response against Modi’s Pilibit speech, ECI is likely to conclude that “Narendra Modi’s reference to the construction of the Ram Temple in an election rally is not an appeal to vote in the name of religion. Mentioning the development of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor…the Sikh holy book…in a constituency with a sizeable Sikh population, does not violate the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).” The same report also noted that “it is also understood that the EC came to the conclusion that the PM’s speech did not promote enmity between communities, and that the mere mention of religion in a campaign speech is not sufficient for the EC to act, as it would unduly restrict a candidate’s freedom to campaign”.

The elections of 2024 will be marked by sharply partisan non-conduct from the statutory body, the ECI. The ECI has arguably contributed to contaminating the Indian political and public sphere by its one-sided action topped by brazen inaction in dealing with the aforementioned speeches by campaigners of the ruling regime. The content of all these speeches, misuse religious for political gain, slur and stigmatise certain sections of Indians and promote enmity between communities of our people.

Related:

United Against Hate: CJP’s Battle for a Hate-Free Election in 2024! | CJP

Why Modi’s poll histrionics accusing Congress of potentially fracturing away SC/ST quotas to Muslims is a spurious claim?

Several instances of hate speech in March and April mar the election cycle, demonise religious minorities before the polls | CJP

The post ECI: Of 16 notices issued by ECI for violation of MCC/electoral laws, BJP escapes scrutiny with just 3 from the watchdog appeared first on SabrangIndia.