Latest news with #Form17A
News18
8 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
EC Cites Privacy, Legal Concerns After Congress Demands Polling Booth CCTV Footage
Last Updated: The Election Commission cited privacy and legal issues in response to Rahul Gandhi's demand for CCTV footage of polling stations. Gandhi urged publishing digital voter rolls. Following a demand made by Congress MP and Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi, the Election Commission on Saturday cited privacy and legal hurdles while sharing the CCTV footage of webcasting of the polling stations. This comes after Rahul Gandhi has called upon the Election Commission to publish consolidated, digital, machine-readable voter rolls for the most recent elections to the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas of all states, including Maharashtra, saying that 'telling the truth" will protect the poll panel's credibility. ECI said that the seemingly legitimate appeal of releasing the videos or CCTV footage from polling stations on election day undermines voter privacy and security, contradicting the Representation of the People Act and Supreme Court guidelines. 'What is veiled as a very logical demand is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters, legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950/1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court of India," it said. 'Sharing of the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well as the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements," the poll body added. It said that if a particular political party gets a lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and thereafter, may harass or intimidate the electors. The Election Commission further issued a point-by-point rebuttal to the Congress MP. . In any election, there may be electors who decide not to vote. Sharing of video footage of the poll day may result in the identification of such electors. This can also lead to profiling of the voters who voted as well as those who did not vote, which may become the basis for discrimination, denial of services, intimidation or inducement. Supreme Court order: The Supreme Court held that the right to vote includes the right not to vote, and the right of secrecy is accorded to even those persons who have decided not to vote. Video footage: Polling day videography records the sequence of voters entering the polling station and their identities, similar to Form 17A, which contains sensitive information about voters, including their ID details and signatures. Both pose a risk to voting secrecy. Violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under Section 128 of RP Act, 1951 for – Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section is punishable with imprisonment for a term expending up to 3 months or fine or both.
Hindustan Times
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC
The Election Commission of India has revised its rules for accessibility of video footage recorded during polls, saying that such footage cannot be viewed by anyone except a court hearing an election petition as it could breach privacy of voters and raise security concerns. Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC Sharing the footage — recorded through CCTVS, webcast or videography — would enable easy identification of electors by any group or individual, and would leave them vulnerable to 'pressure, discrimination, and intimidation by anti-social elements', officials familiar with the matter said citing the EC's communication. In a circular dated June 18, the commission directed all states and Union territories that the revised rule will apply to elections notified after May 30, 2025. '[The videos] shall be produced in original before the High Court adjudicating an election petition on its order and shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except the High Court adjudicating the Election Petition,' the commission said in the circular, which also contained previous communications pertaining to the preservation of video. HT has seen a copy of the circular. The changes have come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. The commission has also directed it officials to destroy such video footage after 45 days of declaration of results if the election verdict is not challenged in courts, a separate circular issued on May 30 and cited in the latest circular said. Since election results cannot be challenged beyond 45 days, retaining such footage beyond this period would make it susceptible to misuse for 'spreading misinformation and malicious narratives', an official familiar with the matter said. But in case an election petition is filed within the stipulated time of 45 days, the videos will not be destroyed and made available to the competent court, the official cited above said. Providing videos is akin to providing access to Form 17A (register of voters) — which contains information pertaining to the sequence in which electors enter a polling station, serial number of the elector in the electoral roll — under Rule 49L of the Conduct of Election Rules, the official said. 'Violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under section 128 of RPA, 1951 [maintenance of secrecy of voting] with imprisonment for a term up to three months or fine or both. Thus, ECI is legally bound and committed to protect the privacy of the electors and secrecy of voting,' the official said requesting anonymity. A second official said that safeguarding the interests of its electors is 'of prime concern'. 'For the ECI safeguarding the interests of its electors and maintaining their privacy and secrecy is of prime concern, even if some of the political parties/ interest groups mount pressure on the Commission to abandon the laid down procedures or to ignore the security concerns of the electors. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable and the ECI has, never in the past, compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court,' the second official said, requesting anonymity. The move triggered a sharp reaction from Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, who accused EC of 'deleting evidence' when it was required to 'provide answers'. 'Voter list? Will not give machine-readable format. CCTV footage? Hidden by changing the law. Election photos and videos? Now they will be deleted in 45 days, not 1 year. The one who was supposed to provide answers - is the one deleting the evidence,' Gandhi alleged in a post on X. 'It is clear that the match is fixed. And a fixed election is poison for democracy,' the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha posted in Hindi. Gandhi has been demanding voter lists, poll data and video footage from the election commission, alleging irregularities in Maharashtra assembly elections. While the ECI did not respond to Gandhi's comments, a third official said: '[Opposition's remarks] suit their narrative in making the demand sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process in the country, it is in fact aimed at achieving exactly the opposite objective. What is veiled as a very logical demand, is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters.' Earlier in the week, a purported video showing two people standing at the EVM in a polling booth during the Visavadar assembly bypoll in Gujarat — held on June 19 — emerged on social media, with EC launching a probe into how the video was leaked.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
ECI cites law and privacy to deny CCTV access as Rahul Gandhi alleges match-fixing
With Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi once again raising questions over the Election Commission amending rules to avoid sharing polling booth CCTV footage, the poll panel on Saturday strongly rejected the charge, saying the very idea was "entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951, and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India". It added that safeguarding the interests of electors and maintaining their privacy and secrecy was of prime concern-even if some political parties or interest groups "mount pressure" on the Commission "to abandon laid down procedures or ignore the security concerns of electors". The Congress leader had earlier in the day posted on social media platform X, reiterating his allegations of "match fixing" under the EC's watch and accusing it of trying to hide "evidence". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo The EC, however, maintained that it is "legally bound and committed to protect the privacy of electors and secrecy of voting", and that polling station video footage cannot be provided to any person, candidate, NGO, or third party without the express consent of the elector(s). The Commission said that webcasting at polling booths on voting days is essentially "an internal management tool" for monitoring poll-day activities, and the footage can only be provided under court orders. Live Events "ECI is ready to provide the same to the competent court-i.e. the Hon'ble High Court-when directed in an Election Petition filed to challenge an election, as the court is also a custodian of individual privacy," the EC said. It noted that both videography and Form 17A contain information critical to maintaining the secrecy of voting, as they record the sequence in which electors enter polling stations and their photo/identity. Form 17A is mandated to be provided only under orders of a competent court under Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Therefore, video footage can also only be shared under court orders, the Commission said. It also warned that sharing footage could enable "easy identification of electors by any group or individual", potentially leaving both those who voted and those who did not vulnerable to "pressure, discrimination, and intimidation by anti-social elements". For instance, if a political party received fewer votes at a particular booth, it could use CCTV footage to identify who voted or abstained-and then harass or intimidate voters, the EC noted. It added that violation of voting secrecy is a punishable offence under Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951. The Commission also defended its decision to reduce the CCTV footage retention period from one year to 45 days, saying this aligns with the time limit for filing an Election Petition (EP) after election results are declared. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of result declaration, retaining footage beyond this period would make it "susceptible to misuse by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives", the EC said. It clarified that in cases where an EP is filed within 45 days, the footage is not destroyed and is made available to the competent court when required.
Scroll.in
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Election conduct rules amended at lightning speed despite objection by law officers, documents show
On December 21, Scroll was the first to report that the Conduct of Election Rules had been amended to deny public access to election-related papers – a move that the Opposition said would reduce transparency in the electoral process. Documents accessed by Scroll now reveal that this amendment was made at lightning speed – despite the law officers of the Union Law Ministry objecting to the original draft proposed by the Election Commission. The Election Commission wrote to the Ministry of Law on December 17, proposing an amendment to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The letter was received by the ministry on December 19. The very next day, December 20, officers of the law ministry and the Election Commission discussed the proposed amendment, made changes to the draft, which was cleared by the law secretary and the Union law minister and sent back to the poll panel. That day itself, the Election Commission responded to the Law Ministry, accepting the draft copy of the amendment, and requesting that 'the same may be notified at the earliest'. The amendment was notified at 10.23 pm on December 20. A week before the Election Commission had initiated the amendment process, on December 9, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had directed the Election Commission to provide video recordings and copies of documents related to polling in the Haryana assembly elections to advocate Mehmood Pracha. The amendment ensured the Election Commission would not have to make these disclosures. Disagreement between law ministry and ECI The amendment was cleared and notified in less than two days despite law officers objecting to the language used in the original draft. The Election Commission wanted to amend Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. At that time, Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules allowed public inspection of 'all other papers relating to the election' except electronic voting machines, used and unused ballot papers, a marked copy of the electoral roll, and Form 17A, which is a register of voters who have cast their votes in an election. This meant anyone could inspect electronic recordings like CCTV footage of polling booths and Form 17C, a document that records the total number of votes cast at a polling station for each candidate. Advocate Mehmood Pracha had sought access to Form 17 C and CCTV footage from polling booths in Haryana citing this rule, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court had upheld his plea. Within days of the court order, the Election Commission wrote to the law ministry, proposing Rule 93 be amended to limit public access to election-related papers and electronic recordings. Specifically, it proposed that sub-rule (2A) of Rule 93 be amended to add the word 'statutory' before 'papers'. At that time, the sub-rule said: 'all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection'. In its letter, the poll panel argued: 'Providing non-statutory papers and electronic recordings necessitates involvement of substantial manpower, which is impractical post-election, as administrative resources are significantly reduced.' It added that since 'the office of the Returning Officer ceases to exist' after an election is over, 'assigning them additional workload of supplying non-statutory documents post elections, at such a large scale, will overburden and cripple the administrative functioning in the field'. The Election Commission also argued that providing public access to 'all other papers' related to elections may 'create confusion'. 'Further, the term 'all other papers' is a wide term and can be interpreted to include all kinds of materials related to election, which may create confusion and unnecessary administrative burden, serving no legal purpose,' it wrote in its letter to the law ministry. Correspondence between the poll panel and the law ministry accessed by Scroll reveals that the law officers objected to the proposed amendment. The officers told the poll body that sub rules (1) and (1A) of Rule 93 of Conduct of Elections Rules provide a list of election records that cannot be accessed by public, and adding 'statutory' in sub-rule (2) of Rule 93 would 'impose further restrictions on the inspection of papers' which may not be the intention of Conduct of Elections Rules which have been in place for last 63 years. 'Putting the word 'statutory' before the word 'papers' will impose further restrictions on the inspection of papers which may not be the intention of sub-rule (2) of Conduct of Elections Rules,' law ministry officials wrote. The officials further argued that 'the word 'statutory' is not defined and inference of its meaning may not be ascertained from the construction of the language of the rules. This will lead to ambiguity to the provisions thereof.' Documents accessed by Scroll show that at the insistence of law officers, the Election Commission agreed to replace 'statutory papers' with 'all other papers specified in these rules' in the proposed amendment to the Conduct of Elections Rules. While the original amendment proposed by the Election Commission would have given it greater discretion to deny access to any document not defined or explicitly stated in the rules, the changed provision appears to leave room for the inspection of records that have not been explicitly denied to the public.
