The Supreme Court on Friday declined to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish booth-wise voter turnout numbers and upload copies of Form 17C (which reflects votes polled at each polling station) on its website within 48 hours of polling. The court stated that it could not do so during the ongoing elections and adjourned the hearing on related pleas.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Mishra addressed an interim application filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The bench noted that the interim relief sought was the same as the final relief requested in a pending 2019 petition by TMC leader Mahua Moitra. Granting interim relief would effectively be granting the final relief.
The bench emphasized that all related pleas will be listed before an appropriate bench once the court reopens after the summer recess. Justice Datta remarked, “Everyone is for a free and fair election… We cannot interrupt something. To take it further, we can do it. We are also responsible citizens. Let us trust some authority. We will keep it pending and it will be heard along with the writ petition after the elections are over. In between elections, a hands-off attitude has to be there.”
The bench questioned why the petitioner, who moved the court in 2019, had not pursued the matter over the past five years or before the current Lok Sabha elections began. “You filed this petition in 2019. For the last five years, leave aside the Covid period, what steps were taken to have this heard? And why did you not come up with this application prior to March 16? Why on April 26, when the process is on?” asked Justice Datta.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, appearing for Moitra, explained that the delay was due to issues with the person who filed the petition. The bench also questioned the petitioners about the similarity between the prayers in the interim application and the 2019 writ petition. Justice Datta pointed out, “Prayer A in your application is Prayer B in your petition. That’s the final relief you have prayed for in the writ petition. How can you claim interim relief? Interim application is based on certain press notes pertaining to the 2024 elections. If subsequent events can be considered by the court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, what is the procedure for that?”
Justice Datta continued, “Does the court grant by way of an order interim relief which is in the nature of final relief, keeping the writ petition pending? This could have given you the ground for filing a fresh writ petition. Why did you not file a fresh petition? What is the nexus between the 2019 petition and 2024 application? If you say there is a nexus, you are trapped in one way. You cannot by an interim application seek an order, you have to get your writ petition amended… And if you say there is no connection, then a fresh writ petition should have been filed.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for ADR, stated it was not adversarial litigation and expressed his frustration with the ECI’s opposition. The bench, however, maintained its position, emphasizing that interim relief should only be granted in “very exceptional cases where the non-grant of an interim relief which is in the nature of final relief has the effect of rendering the proceedings infructuous.”
Dave explained that ADR approached the court now because the voter turnout details were published recently, and the ECI revised voting percentages after the first two phases. Justice Datta pointed out that the writ petition prayed for information dissemination for the 2019 elections and all future elections, which the Supreme Court has yet to decide upon.
Justice Datta noted, “We are not strict on PILs if it involves a public cause. But over the years, the public interest litigation jurisdiction…of the matters that we entertain, that come before us, how many PILs have private interest, publicity interest, paisa interest. So, therefore, it is for us to put a check on frivolous writ petitions from being filed. We don’t say that on merits you don’t have a good case. You may succeed in your 2019 petition. We are trying to say given the frame of your petition, you may not have approached at the appropriate stage with a proper prayer.”
The court, while keeping the application and petition pending till after the elections, expressed concern that there could be mischievous people taking advantage of the situation. “We cannot interrupt something. To take it further, we can do it. We are also responsible citizens. Let us trust some authority,” said Justice Datta.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission, argued that the issue of Form 17C was settled by the Supreme Court in its judgment on the EVM-VVPAT matter and that the application was based on “suspicion and apprehension,” urging the court to dismiss it.
