On Friday, the Supreme Court adjourned an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) seeking directions to the Election Commission (EC) regarding the publication of voter turnout data and making Form 17C vote tally records available online within 48 hours of polling. The Supreme Court agreed with the EC’s contention that judicial intervention was barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution.
Background
- Application by ADR: ADR, an NGO, filed an application requesting the EC to publish booth-wise voter turnout figures and to make Form 17C records available online within 48 hours of polling.
- Election Commission’s Stance: The EC opposed the request, arguing that making Form 17C publicly accessible could lead to manipulation and mistrust among the public. The EC also cited Article 329(b) to bar judicial intervention during the ongoing election process.
Supreme Court’s Decision
- Hands-Off Approach: The Supreme Court took a “hands-off approach,” noting the difficulty of the EC allocating necessary resources during the election phases.
- Adjournment: The interlocutory application was adjourned to be listed after the court’s summer vacation.
- Interim Relief: The court stated that granting interim relief would equate to providing relief in the main petition pending since 2019.
Main Petition Details
- Filed by ADR in 2019: The main petition sought directions for the EC to stop announcing election results based on provisional data and to develop a robust procedure for investigating election data discrepancies.
Article 329(b) and Judicial Intervention
- Constitutional Provision: Article 329(b) bars judicial intervention in electoral processes during elections. Challenges to election conduct or results must be made through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Court Rulings:
- K. Venkatachalam vs A. Swamickan (1999): Article 329(b) is inapplicable to matters related to disqualifications and penalties (Articles 191 and 193).
- Inderjit Barua vs Election Commission of India (1985): Electoral roll preparation is excluded from “election” definition; defects in electoral rolls cannot challenge elections.
- N.C. Patel vs State of Gujarat (2007): Election petitions must be filed under the Representation of the People Act, not via writ petitions.
- Hari Krishna Lal vs Atal Bihari Bajpai (2002): Only officially recognised candidates by the EC can file election petitions.
Significance of Article 329(b)
- Part XV of the Constitution: Articles 324-329 outline election-related matters.
- Judiciary’s Role: Article 329(a) prevents judiciary from challenging laws about electoral districts and seat allocation. Article 329(b) requires election-related challenges to follow a designated legal process.
Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What was the primary reason the Supreme Court adjourned ADR’s plea?
- A) Lack of evidence
- B) Resource constraints of the EC
- C) Bar under Article 329(b)
- D) Summer vacation of the court
- What did ADR seek in its main petition filed in 2019?
- A) Immediate announcement of election results
- B) Discontinuation of announcing results based on provisional data
- C) Increase in the number of polling stations
- D) Extension of voting hours
- Which constitutional article did the EC invoke to bar judicial intervention?
- A) Article 324
- B) Article 329(a)
- C) Article 329(b)
- D) Article 326
- According to the Supreme Court’s 1999 ruling in K. Venkatachalam vs A. Swamickan, when is Article 329(b) inapplicable?
- A) During electoral roll preparation
- B) Regarding disqualifications and penalties (Articles 191 and 193)
- C) For presidential elections
- D) When provisional data is used
- What does Article 329(b) stipulate about election-related challenges?
- A) They must be filed before elections begin
- B) They must be addressed through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951
- C) They can be addressed through writ petitions
- D) They must be resolved by the President