SC notice to Centre, ECI on Jairam Ramesh’s plea on election rule amendments
SC notice to Centre, ECI on Jairam Ramesh’s plea on election rule amendments
M.U.H
15/01/202515
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Union government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to a petition filed by Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh, challenging the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules while raising concerns about transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, issued notices to the two respondents, scheduling the next hearing in the week commencing March 17.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Ramesh, attacked the amendment, saying the move was made in a “clever” manner to put access to crucial materials out of the public gaze while making a fallacious argument that revelation of such information might reveal the identity of the voters as well as voting preferences.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing for Ramesh, referred to Form 17A and 17C under the Conduct of Election Rules, requiring ECI to maintain two forms that have details of the number of electors and the votes polled.
Following their preliminary submissions, the bench agreed to consider the matter and issued notices.
Ramesh, representing Congress, had moved the apex court last month, expressing apprehension over the amendments, which he claims undermine the integrity of elections. Ramesh has been vocal in his criticism, stating that the modifications restrict public access to crucial information, thereby eroding the transparency of the electoral process.
In December, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The amendment limits the types of “papers” or documents that are open to public inspection. Specifically, it restricts access to electronic materials such as CCTV footage, webcasting videos and recordings of candidates, citing concerns over potential misuse.
Ramesh, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), described the move as a blow to the integrity of elections.
“The Election Commission, a Constitutional body charged with conducting free and fair elections, cannot be allowed to unilaterally and without public consultation amend such a vital law in such a brazen manner,” he posted last month, announcing the filing of the petition in the top court. He further argued that limiting public access to these materials curtails transparency and accountability, which are the cornerstones of a robust electoral process.
The Congress party has consistently criticised the amendment, describing it as an affront to democratic principles. Ramesh stated: “This amendment does away with public access to essential information that makes the electoral process more transparent and accountable.” He expressed hope that the Supreme Court would intervene to restore the integrity of the electoral process.
The petition underscores concerns that the amendment was introduced without adequate public consultation, a move the Congress argues undermines the trust in institutions tasked with upholding democratic values.
The recent changes to Rule 93(2)(a) bar public inspection of certain documents related to the electoral process, including surveillance footage and recordings. The government has justified the move as necessary to prevent misuse of these materials, but critics contend that it shields crucial information from scrutiny and diminishes the transparency of elections.
