The recent amendment to Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, by the Union government has triggered intense political and public debate, with significant criticism from the opposition parties, particularly the Congress. The change, which restricts public access to electronic documents such as CCTV footage and video recordings of candidates, has raised serious concerns about the erosion of transparency and the integrity of the electoral process in India.
Previously, Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules mandated that "all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection." This meant that a wide array of documents, including nomination forms, poll agents' appointments, and other election-related records, were available for scrutiny by the public. However, under the amended rule, access is now limited to "all other papers as specified in these rules," which effectively narrows down the scope of documents open to public inspection.
The rationale behind the amendment, as outlined by the Union Law Ministry and election officials, is to address concerns raised by legal cases involving the request for electronic records, such as CCTV footage and video recordings, from polling stations. In particular, a case filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha during the Haryana Assembly elections highlighted the issue. Pracha had sought access to these electronic records, including CCTV footage, as part of his effort to scrutinize the election process. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in response to his plea, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide the requested documents, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the electoral process.
The government’s response to this legal challenge was to amend the rule, limiting public access to electronic records. Election officials explained that this change would ensure that only documents explicitly mentioned in the Conduct of Election Rules would be made available for public inspection. This move, they argue, is necessary to prevent misuse of electronic materials, such as CCTV footage from polling booths, which could potentially compromise voter secrecy and the integrity of the voting process.
Poll officials also expressed concerns that allowing such footage to be publicly available could undermine the security of the electoral system, as it might lead to the identification of voters and poll agents, violating the principle of voter confidentiality. Despite these concerns, officials assured that the amended rule would not prevent candidates from accessing these materials. However, they clarified that candidates would still need to approach the courts if they wished to obtain any electronic records that were not listed under the specific rules.
The Congress party, led by senior leader Jairam Ramesh, has sharply criticized the government’s move. Ramesh described the amendment as a "vindication" of the party’s long-standing concerns about the declining transparency and credibility of the electoral process in India. He pointed out that the amendment was a direct response to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's directive, which had ordered the ECI to provide information to the public. Ramesh accused the Election Commission of attempting to avoid public scrutiny and transparency, questioning why the ECI was "afraid of transparency."
In a tweet, Ramesh emphasized the need for openness in the electoral process, stating, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and information will restore faith in the process." He called for legal challenges against the amendment, asserting that any attempt to limit public access to election-related documents would further erode public trust in the system. The Congress leader also questioned why the Election Commission, instead of complying with the High Court’s directive, had opted to amend the law in a way that curtailed transparency.
The controversy surrounding the amendment has ignited a larger debate about the balance between security, privacy, and transparency in India’s elections. While the government and election authorities argue that the amendment is necessary to safeguard voter secrecy and prevent potential misuse of electronic records, critics believe that restricting access to such documents could undermine public confidence in the electoral system. The move has raised questions about whether such changes are in line with the principles of democratic accountability and whether they will have broader implications for the transparency of future elections.
Despite the backlash, the government has maintained that the rule amendment does not prevent transparency but rather ensures that the documents available for public inspection are those that are directly referenced in the election rules. The government’s stance is that such measures are in place to protect the integrity of the voting process while ensuring that any electronic records not specifically listed in the rules remain restricted from public view unless directed by a court.
This issue underscores the ongoing tension between the need for security in election processes and the public’s right to access information that is crucial for ensuring fairness and accountability. With the Congress and other opposition parties demanding greater transparency, the controversy is likely to fuel further debates about electoral reforms and the need for stronger mechanisms to ensure open and free elections in India. As the legal challenges to the rule amendment unfold, it remains to be seen how the Election Commission will respond and whether the government will reconsider its position on this significant change.
