Don’t erase videos of polling during pendency of PIL against increasing voters’ number per polling station, SC tells EC

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Election Commission to ensure that video recordings of polling were not erased during pendency of a PIL challenging the poll body’s decision to increase the maximum number of voters per polling station from 1200 to 1500.

Advertisement

“We find it appropriate to direct that the 1^st Respondent (EC) shall maintain the CCTVs from which the videos are recorded as they were doing earlier,” a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna said.

The direction came after the poll panel sought additional time to file a response.

“Counsel of Respondent 1 (EC) seeks more time to file an affidavit in compliance with the order dated December 2, 2024. Let the affidavit be filed within three weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within three weeks after the service of the aforesaid,” the Bench said while hearing a PIL filed by one Indu Prakash Singh.

On January 15, the top court had asked the Centre and the EC to respond to Congress leader Jairam Ramesh’s petition against the recent amendments to the Election Rules, 1961, that barred public access to CCTV footage and posted it for hearing in March.

The top court had on December 2 last year asked the Election Commission to respond in three weeks to a PIL challenging its decision to increase the maximum number of voters per polling station from 1200 to 1500.

“File a short affidavit explaining the position… We are concerned that no voter should be troubled,” the Bench had told senior advocate Maninder Singh—who represented the Election Commission.

“One polling station might have several polling booths, so would this (policy) apply to a single booth-polling station also?” the Bench wondered.

Maintaining that political parties were consulted in every constituency when the total number of voters was raised per EVM, Singh told the Bench that polling stations had been accommodating the increased number of voters since 2019. Voters were always permitted to cast their votes even beyond the prescribed time, he submitted.

Asking the Election Commission to provide a copy of its affidavit to be filed to the petitioner before the next date of hearing, the Bench had posted the PIL for further hearing in the last week of January 27, 2025.

While refusing to issue notice to the commission on Singh’s petition, the Bench had in November last year asked him to serve an advance copy of his petition on standing counsel of the Election Commission for obtaining necessary instructions on the factual position and spell out the poll panel’s stand.

The petition has challenged the EC’s two communications issued in August 2024 increasing the number of voters at each polling booth in each constituency across India, contending that it was not supported by any data and had no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

The petitioner contended that the decision to increase the number of voters per polling booth was arbitrary and not based on any data.

Claiming that it took about 60-90 seconds for a voter to cast his/her vote and elections are typically held for 11 hours, he submitted that it would mean that only 495-660 persons can vote per polling station.

Considering the average voting percentage of 65.7%, it’s perceivable that a polling station prepared to accept 1000 electors can accommodate about 650 voters. However, there’re booths where elector turnout is in the range of 85-90%, Singh contended.

“In such a situation, about 20% of voters will either end up standing in queue beyond the voting hours or due to long waiting times will abandon exercising their right to vote. Neither is acceptable in a progressive republic or a democracy,” the petitioner submitted.

On behalf of the petitioner, senior counsel AM Singhvi had contended that the increase in the number of voters per polling station from 1200 to 1500 would lead to exclusion of underprivileged groups from the election process due to the disproportionate amount of time taken in voting on account of the increased number.

Terming it an act of voter disenfranchisement, Singhvi had said voters get discouraged due to long queues and waiting periods.