 "ECI, election commission of india, election commission")
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has found itself embroiled in a debate over the transparency of voter turnout data during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. On Wednesday (May 22), the poll body informed the Supreme Court of its decision not to publish Form 17C – a crucial document detailing the votes casted at each polling station – on its official website.
The ECI’s decision comes against the backdrop of the forthcoming final phases of the Lok Sabha elections. As the country stands on the brink of ushering in a new government, it becomes imperative to delve into the significance of Form 17C and the reasons behind its newfound prominence.
Understanding Form 17C
Form 17C serves as a comprehensive record of votes cast across polling booths nationwide. It encompasses a plethora of data, including the allocation of electors to each polling station, the overall count of registered voters within a specific area, the number of electors abstaining from voting, those denied voting rights, the total tally of votes tabulated via Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), and particulars concerning ballot papers and paper seals.
The latter section of Form 17C delineates the names of candidates along with the total votes garnered by each. Additionally, it furnishes insight into whether the votes recorded at a given booth tally with the overall votes polled.
According to the Indian Express, under Rules 49S and 56C of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the presiding officer compiles an account of recorded votes in Part-I of Form 17C, subsequently sharing it with every polling agent.
Part II of Form 17C is completed by the supervisor of the counting station and necessitates the signature of each candidate or their representative. This section undergoes scrutiny by the Returning Officer.
More From This Section
Dispute surrounding voter turnout data
The ECI has been at the receiving end of mounting scrutiny from Opposition leaders and activists regarding the delay in releasing final voter turnout data.
The electoral body divulged the ultimate voter turnout figures 11 days after the initial phase of polling on April 19, with subsequent delays of four days each for the ensuing three phases.
Critics have also pointed out that the ECI has not disclosed the absolute voter count in each Parliamentary constituency this election cycle. They have also raised concerns regarding the sudden surge in final voter turnout figures during the initial phases vis-a-vis the provisional data released on polling day.
Expressing apprehension over the delay in releasing turnout data, Congress leader Pawan Khera said, “Voters are worried about the strange goings on in the @ECISVEEP through the four phases of voting. First, the Election Commission takes 10-11 days to bring out the final figure of voting and then the difference between real-time data and final figure turns out to be 1.7 crore votes. This is truly unprecedented. Unanswered questions about the missing EVMs are also very worrying.”
On 14 May, Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra shared voter data from the Krishnanagar constituency, where she contested against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s Amrita Roy, questioning the ECI’s ability to compile data for concluded phases.
“Attention EC - here is data for my constituency with the number of voters, compiled within 24 hours… Why are you not able to give this for four phases?” she asked.
Election Commission’s response
A petition filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) urged the EC to upload scanned copies of Form 17C on its website immediately after polling concludes.
In response, the Supreme Court (SC) directed the EC to furnish a reply. According to the Indian Express report, the electoral body highlighted the disparity between the statutory disclosure of votes recorded at each polling station under Form 17C and the non-statutory announcement of voter turnout on polling day via press releases and its Voter Turnout app.
The EC asserted before the apex court, “It is submitted that there is no legal mandate to provide Form 17C to any person other than the candidate or his agent.”
Citing concerns over potential tampering, the EC contended in its affidavit that uploading Form 17C on its website could lead to ‘mischief’ and that there is a possibility of manipulation of images, fostering ‘widespread discomfort and mistrust’.
“A wholesome disclosure of Form 17C is amenable to mischief and vitiation of (the) entire electoral space. At the moment, the original Form 17C is only available in the Strong Room and a copy only with the polling agents whose signature it bears… indiscriminate disclosure, public posting on the website increased the possibility of the images being morphed, including the counting results which then can create widespread public discomfort and mistrust in the entire electoral processes,” the ECI highlighted.
Voter turnout dispute
During a previous hearing on May 17, the Supreme Court asked the electoral body about its reluctance to publish voter turnout data.
The ECI rebuked the ADR in its affidavit, accusing it of attempting to “create an entitlement in the middle of the election period”.
The NGO had decried what it perceived as undue delays by the EC in divulging final voter turnout data, alongside expressing reservations regarding the substantial increase in final figures compared to initial voter turnout percentages.
Dismissing the allegations of a surge in final voter turnout data during the initial two phases, the EC asserted before the apex court that such assertions were “misleading and unsubstantiated”. The Supreme Court is scheduled to reconvene on Friday (May 24) to further deliberate on the matter.
