25-05-2025
EC holds legal framework meet
Chief electoral officers from all 36 states and the legal counsels of the Election Commission of India from the Supreme Court and 28 high courts on Saturday participated in the concluding session of the two-day conference and deliberated on ways to improve the panel's litigation strategy and procedural transparency.
With the discussion focusing on the theme 'first line of defence: challenge maintainability', the Commission has decided to now contest election-related petitions on the grounds of maintainability before engaging on merits.
'Election-related litigations are increasingly politically motivated. The first step should be to examine whether the petitioner has exhausted all statutory remedies and whether the Commission is legally obligated to provide the information sought,' a person who attended the conference said on condition of anonymity.
One of the examples cited during this discussion was the controversy over Form 17C, which documents voter turnout at the polling booth level.
While the form is currently shared only with candidates or their agents, petitions demanding wider publication are pending in the Supreme Court.
'We have to assert the limits of legal mandate here so that the petition become non maintainable,' the person cited above said.
Another person who attended the conference said that post-result questioning of electoral rolls also came up for discussion. 'There are defined procedures for objections and appeals during the drafting of electoral rolls, but these are rarely used. If such remedies haven't been exhausted, the Commission will use this as a preliminary line of defence. This reinforces the image of a well-structured system grounded in legal procedure,' the second person said.
Another area of focus for the conference was 'managing narrative: battle of perceptions'.
Media coverage of court proceedings often highlights only the petitioner's arguments or judges' oral observations, while the ECI's responses go unreported, people familiar with the matter said. 'This leads to public suspicion… It was deliberated that Commission's version must also be communicated effectively, the people said.
The discussions also centred on 'saving court's time: treating the petition as a representation, hearing and passing the speaking orders by the CEOs or the Deputy Election Commissioners'.
People cited above said that it was deliberated that the CEOs or the DECs conducting hearings and issuing speaking orders, so that minor matters do not escalate into full-blown litigation. 'If we can resolve these at the initial level, the judiciary's burden will be reduced,' said a senior official said requesting anonymity.
It was also emphasised that once a grievance is heard by a CEO or DEC, the resulting order must be 'legally sound, factually precise, and procedurally complete'. 'Well-drafted, well-reasoned orders can prevent escalation to courts and reinforce the Commission's credibility,' a fourth person told HT.
