New Delhi, April 17: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted the Election Commission of India (ECI) an additional three weeks to respond to a set of public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the recent amendments made to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The petitions, including one filed by Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh, contest a modification in Rule 93(2)(a), which allegedly restricts public access to vital election-related records, such as CCTV footage and webcasting data.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, had earlier issued notices to the Union government and the poll panel on January 15, asking them to reply to the concerns raised in Ramesh’s plea. On Thursday, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing on behalf of the Election Commission, sought a further extension to file the response. The court accepted the request, setting the week of July 21 as the next date for hearing.
In addition to Jairam Ramesh’s petition, two other PILs on the same issue have been filed — one by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj and the other by citizen petitioner Shyam Lal Pal. All three pleas raise serious concerns about the potential erosion of transparency in India’s electoral process due to the controversial amendments.
Ramesh, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the recent changes were “cleverly introduced” to bar access to CCTV footage under the guise of protecting voter identity. Singhvi emphasized that CCTV footage does not reveal voter choices and questioned the intent behind restricting such public scrutiny. The Congress leader had earlier stated that the integrity of India’s electoral system is “fast eroding” and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would intervene to restore public confidence.
The Union Law Ministry, based on recommendations from the Election Commission, had amended Rule 93(2)(a) in December 2023. Before the amendment, the rule broadly allowed “all other papers relating to the election” to be open to public inspection. The amended rule now limits access to “all other papers as specified in these rules,” a change that significantly narrows the scope of public visibility into electoral documents.
Anjali Bhardwaj’s plea, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenges the constitutional validity of the Conduct of Elections (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024. The plea argues that the amendment violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution by undermining citizens’ rights to information and free and fair elections. Bhardwaj contended that the changes undermine transparency and are inconsistent with the Right to Information Act, which is meant to promote openness in government functioning.
The petitions collectively argue that the amendment introduces arbitrary constraints and potentially paves the way for electoral malpractice by shielding key election records from public scrutiny. The exclusion of documents not explicitly mentioned in the revised rule is seen as a significant rollback of transparency norms that have been in place for decades.
Critics have also highlighted that this change could compromise democratic accountability at a time when concerns over the conduct and integrity of elections have already heightened. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for the week of July 21, when the Court is expected to take up the issue substantively once the Election Commission files its formal reply.