Apex Court Refuses To Grant Any Interim Relief In Plea Seeking Disclosure Of Final Voter Turnout Data By Election Commission

The Supreme Court, today, in the application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Mahua Moitra alleging inordinate and unreasonable delay in the release of final voter turnout data by the Election Commission of India (ECI), has refused to pass any interim orders. The ECI today argued such applications reduce citizens' participation and are responsible for the decline in electoral polls in the country.

The application was filed seeking directions to the ECI to upload all scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part-1, which is Account of Votes Recorded, and Part-2 of all polling stations after the close of polling of each phase in ongoing elections.

The Vacation Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ordered, "....the arguments on the interim applications were heard. Prima facie we are not inclined to grant any relief on the interim application at this stage in view of the similar prayer A of interim application (2024) with prayer B of writ petition 1382 of 2019. Grant of such relief would amount to granting final relief. List the petition after vacations."

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for ADR, submitted, "I am here as a nightwatchman as Mr Bhushan is not available."

Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi submitted, "Mine is the original petition which was filed by Mahua Moitra."

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appearing for the ECI submitted that "The application is founded on suspicion and apprehensions. It is founded on false allegation and your lordships have authoritatively laid down in concurring judgments separately that there is no place for any suspicion."

He further submitted that the judgment dated April 26, 2024, was not even part of the application and it was intentionally hidden from the court and is based on a news article, which is false.

Senior Advocate Singh referred to the judgment and said, "I have two judgments where your lordships have imposed heavy costs on such kind of re-agitation in the garb of new point which is actually covered by constructive res judicata. This continuing indulgence by the is causing so much damage to the public interest by always putting a question mark on the election process."

Senior Advocate Singh said, "This case is only and only about suspicion and apprehensions. The plea says these apprehensions must be addressed...this is the plea which should be heard in vacation during election process when sixth phase is going to happen... Today, when the matter is over, in the evening, a fresh application will come...I am sure in their factory something more is churning out."

Singh alleged, "This can have the impact of creating distrust, this can reduce citizens' participation and maybe, perhaps, this the reason why the polls are going down very recently, because of this continuous challenge to the election process. Creating disturbance. This can reduce citizen participation and confidence in elections, which is essential for a healthy and robust democracy."

Singh also submitted his arguments on the principle of Constructive Res Judicata and its application to Writ Petitions.

Singh further remarked, "The same day judgment was delivered, the factory started churning out another application based on suspicion..."

Justice Datta asked Senior Advocate Dave, "Please read your prayer...how can you claim it as an interim relief? Please note it down, you have to answer many questions...What is the procedure that is adopted in a suit and what follows in a writ petition, whether principles of CPC apply?...Does the court by an interim order grant a relief which is in nature of a final relief?...Why did you not file a separate writ petition? What is the nexus between the 2019 and 2024 applications?"

Dave submitted, "We could have filed only after there was disclosure by ECI."

Justice Datta sternly remarked, "Look at your prayer! We have read our papers. No single interim prayer as far as ADR is concerned then it is final prayer...We are not strict but over the years the jurisprudence of Public Interests litigation has changed...It is for us to put a check on these PILs being right."

Dave said, "On the point of my learned friend's argument of prejudice, there is no question of suppression here, we have raised a different point."

Justice Datta remarked, "There is a WhatsApp...which sends messages about the number of votes...that voter turn out app. There were controversial figures being maintained by the voter turnout app. I have asked Mr Singh, are you statutorily obliged to maintain this? He said no, only for the purpose of maintaining fairness and transparency we are doing it....I didn't say it in an open court, now I will have to say it is like "Aa Bail Mujhe Mar."

Dave said, "We have full faith in the Election Commission of India."

Singh replied to this, "Oh come on! You called our reply ridiculous and it is in the papers everywhere."

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "There is a lighter way and a serious way. There were two Learned Judges of this Court, when they were pronouncing judgments they could be heard in the corridors. Today Mr Maninder Singh is heard at the end of the building, and when I get up to speak, he doesn't want me to speak. Commission cannot be so desperate. You cannot shout out the court and not the council to argue "

He further said "ECI cannot say that 17C is covered by Res Judicata, this Court does not use strict rules of interim v final relief in PIL matters. If such issues are not decided then how will it be."

On May 17, 2024, the matter was mentioned by Advocate Prashant Bhushan for urgent listing, subsequently, the Bench headed by the Chief Justice agreed to hear the at the end of the board. The Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra heard the matter even after 6 pm and directed ECI to file its Reply.

The ECI had filed its reply to the application alleging inordinate and unreasonable delay in the release of final voter turnout data and has stated that persons with motivated interests may use any disclosure of Form 17C to cast aspersions on the electoral process and may cause confusion in the minds of voters. The ECI had said there is no legal mandate to provide Form 17C to anyone other than the candidate or his agent.

The ECI had further alleged that there are certain elements and vested interests that keep on throwing baseless and false allegations, creating an unwarranted atmosphere of suspicion in the proximity of the time of conduct of every election by the ECI, to discredit the same. Furthermore, it had submitted that there is a consistent malafide campaign/design/effort to keep on raising suspicion and doubt in every possible manner by misleading assertions and baseless allegations regarding the conduct of elections by the ECI.

 The present Application was filed in the writ petition which is pending before the Supreme Court seeking directions for investigations of discrepancies and accurate reconciliation of data in the 2019 General Election.

ADR had prayed for directions to the ECI to upload all scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part-1, which is Account of Votes Recorded, and Part-2 of all polling stations after the close of polling of each phase in ongoing elections. The Application had also said that the ECI is not releasing the absolute number of votes polled, coupled with the unreasonable delay in the release of votes polled data, had led to apprehensions in the mind of the electorate about the sharp increase between initial data and data released on 30.04.2024.

Cause Title: Association of Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1382 of 2019) and Mahua Moitra v. Election Commission of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1389 of 2019)