Election rules row: Supreme Court allows 3 weeks to EC to respond to plea of Jairam Ramesh, others

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted three more weeks to the Election Commission to respond to the pleas of Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh and others against the recent amendments to the 1961 election rules.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had issued a notice to the Centre and the poll panel on January 15 on Ramesh's plea and sought a response.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the poll panel, sought three more weeks to file the reply.

The bench allowed Singh's prayer and set the July 21 week for hearing.

Aside from Ramesh, two similar PILs filed by Shyam Lal Pal and activist Anjali Bhardwaj are pending.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi represented Ramesh.

The petitioners have said the amendments to the 1961 Conduct of Election Rules were made "very cleverly" and barred any access to CCTV footage claiming it would reveal the identity of the voter.

Singhvi previously said voting choices were never revealed and the CCTV footage couldn't reveal votes and urged the bench to ask the poll panel and the Centre to file their responses before the next date of hearing.

Ramesh's plea was filed in December and expressed "hope" that the apex court would help "restore the fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process.

The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage besides video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse.

"The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it," Ramesh said.

Based on EC's recommendation, the union law ministry in December amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the 1961 rules, to restrict the type of "papers" or documents open to public inspection.

Bhardwaj, in her separate plea filed through lawyer Prashant Bhushan, challenged the recent amendment to election rules which allegedly restrict public access to election-related records.

The PIL challenges the validity of the Conduct of Elections (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 and argues the amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution by restricting citizens' access to crucial election-related documents.

Prior to the amendment, it was stated, Rule 93(2)(a) provided "all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection".

"The impugned amendment is a blatant violation of Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India as it brings opaqueness and restricts people's fundamental right to access vital documents and papers related to elections," the plea said.

The amendment, said the plea, sought to narrow and restrict public access to election related records, Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 prior to the 2024 amendment.

The new amendment is stated to have modified the provision to "all other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection".

The petitioner argued the change introduced new and arbitrary restrictions on public access, limiting transparency in the electoral process.

The plea said the amendment infringed upon the fundamental right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) and the right to a free and fair election under Article 21.

It claimed the amendment curtailed public scrutiny of election records, leading to reduced transparency and potentially facilitating corrupt practices.

The amendment, the plea said, imposed arbitrary constraints by restricting access to only those records explicitly mentioned in the rules, excluding others without justification.

By limiting access to election documents, the amendment is seen as contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act, which promotes governmental accountability and transparency, it added.