Form 17C Data: SC Asks ECI to Respond in a Week on ADR Plea Seeking Upload on Website

On Friday, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to respond to an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an apolitical and non-partisan non-profit organisation, seeking directions to the ECI to disclose the authenticated records of voter turnout by uploading on its website scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part-I (Account of Votes Recorded) of all polling stations after each phase of polling in the on-going 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked the ECI to file its reply within a week. The Bench has directed the listing of the application on May 24 before an appropriate Bench.

The Bench sat late in the evening to hear the application. The Bench took up the matter around 6:15 p.m. on Friday.

During the hearing, the Bench asked the ECI as to the difficulty in publishing form 17C information immediately. To this, the counsel for the ECI stated that the process takes time and cannot be done overnight.

“We get the form from every booth of the constituency,” the counsel for the ECI stated.

The CJI again asked why the ECI could not upload the form 17C.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the ECI, sought time to respond to the application filed by the ADR. Finding the request “fair”, the Bench granted a week to the ECI to file its reply.

Appearing for the ADR, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the application was served on the ECI seven days ago. He claimed that the citizens perhaps feel that the EVMs are being replaced, alluding to the rise of 6 percent in total turnout.

The ADR has also sought a direction to provide in the public domain a tabulation of the constituency and polling station-wise figures of voter turnout in absolute numbers and percentage form for the ongoing 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Besides, the ADR has also urged the court to ask the ECI to disclose Part II of Form 17C which contains the candidate-wise result of counting after the compilation of results.

Rule 49S and Rule 56C (2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provide that the presiding officer is to prepare an account of votes recorded in form 17C (Part I) and the returning officer is to record the number of votes in favor of each candidate (Part II of the Form 17).

The said two provisions read:

Rule 49S. Account of votes recorded:

(1) The presiding officer shall at the close of the poll prepare an account of votes recorded in Form 17C and enclose it in a separate cover with the words ‘account of votes recorded’ superscribed thereon. 

(2) The presiding officer shall furnish to every polling agent present at the close of the poll a true copy of the entries made in Form 17C after obtaining a receipt from the said polling agent therefor and shall attest it as a true copy.

Rule 56C. Counting of votes:

(1) After the returning officer is satisfied that a voting machine has in fact not been tampered with, he shall have the votes recorded therein counted by pressing the appropriate button marked ‘result’ provided in the control unit whereby the total votes polled and votes polled by each candidate shall be displayed in respect of each such candidate on the display panel provided for the purpose in the unit. 

(2) As the votes polled by each candidate are displayed on the control unit, the returning officer shall have: 

(a) the number of such votes recorded separately in respect of each candidate in Part II on Form 17C; provided that the test vote recorded, if any, for a candidate, as per item 5 in Part I of Form 17C, shall be subtracted from the number of votes recorded for such candidate as displayed on the control unit. 

(b) Part II of Form 17C completed in other respects and signed by the counting supervisor and also by the candidates or their election agents or their counting agents present; and 

(c) corresponding entries made in a result sheet in Form 20 and the particulars so entered in the result sheet announced.

In its application, the ADR has stated that the voter turn-out data for the first two phases of the ongoing 2024 Lok Sabha elections published by ECI on April 30 has been published 11 days after the first phase of polling held on April 19, and four days after the second phase of polling held on April 26.

“The data as published by the ECI in its press release dated April 30, 2024 shows a sharp increase (by about 5-6 percent) as compared to the initial percentages announced by ECI as of 7 p.m. on the day of polling,” the ADR states.

The inordinate delay, the ADR asserts, in the release of final voter turnout data, coupled with the unusually high revision (of over 5 percent) in the ECI’s press note of April 30, 2024, and the absence of disaggregated constituency and polling station figures in absolute numbers, has raised concerns and public suspicion regarding the correctness of the said data.

Initially on April 19, after the first phase of polling, the ECI issued a press note stating that the tentative figure of voter turnout across 21 states and Union territories (UTs) reported was over 60 percent as of 7 p.m. Similarly, after the second phase on April 26, the EC said the turnout was at 60.96 percent.

The ADR argues that the data published in the press release dated April 30 (Phase I voter turnout: 66.14 percent and Phase II voter turnout 66.71 percent), when compared with the initial data of April 19 and April 26 respectively, shows an increase of nearly 6 percent in the Phase I data and increase of approximately 5.75 percenrt in the Phase II data.

It is on this basis that the ADR has contended that the ECI not releasing an absolute number of votes polled, coupled with the unreasonable delay in the release of votes polled data has led to apprehensions in the mind of the electorate about the sharp increase between initial data and data released on April 30.

“These apprehensions must be addressed and put to rest. That in order to uphold the voter’s confidence it is necessary that the ECI be directed to disclose on its website scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part- I (Account of Votes Recorded) of all polling stations which contains the authenticated figures for votes polled, within 48 hours of the close of polling,” the ADR urges the court.

Arguing for the easy accessibility of data, the ADR has requested the court that a tabulation of the constituency and polling station-wise figures of voter turnout in absolute numbers and in percentage form must also be disclosed.

“This information would be readily available with the ECI, as it is only upon the compilation of these figures that the voter turnout percentage is arrived at,” the ADR claims.

It also states in its application that such information is also required to be reported to the ECI within hours of the closing of polls under various rules and procedures including 17C and the final report by returning officers which should reach the commission by 7 a.m. on the day after the polling and through scrutiny of Form 17A, etc.

“Under the rules, the polling station is mandated to give Form 17C to the polling agents so this information is readily available by the time of close of poll on the day of polling. However, there may be instances that polling agents may not be available,” the ADR argues.

In its application, the ADR has also referred to a letter written by the All India Trinamool Congress on May 6 to the ECI calling upon the ECI to publish the total number of electors in each parliamentary constituency, the total number of voters as noted in the register of voters and number of voters as per Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) for all [arliamentary constituencies that have already gone to polls in Phases I and II.

Similarly, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge has also written to other political parties questioning the increase in voter turn-out percentage and non-disclosure of the number of votes polled in numbers.

In response to the letter by Kharge, the ECI, in a strongly worded letter, has rejected the allegations and stated: “The very premise that voter turnout data was released late is devoid of facts as it has always been available on the voter turnout App.

“The commission has not changed the design or periodicity of displaying voter turnout data in any manner. Needless to add polling station-wise data of electors and voters are given to the agent of the candidate on the day of the poll itself at the close of the poll.”

The ECI claims that it has noticed a design or pattern in creating false narratives during the election period, which unfortunately appears to be continued by Kharge’s letter.

The ECI has also directed Kharge to exercise caution and refrain from making such statements.

“As you are also aware, during the election period, the commission scrupulously avoids commenting on political parties and takes the hard-hitting of several public questions and accusations on its own shoulders as it believes in a respectful collaborative equation with all political parties, so critical for a healthy Indian democracy.

“However, the commission has found your communication placed in the public domain in the middle of the ongoing election process as highly undesirable and one that appears designed to create confusion, misdirection or impediment to the conduct of smooth, free and fair elections which is the mandate of ECI under the Constitution.

“Therefore, to uphold the integrity of the election process, in the face of an aggression on the vitals of live conduct of election coming from your statements, the commission categorically rejects your insinuations and allegations and advises you to exercise caution and refrain in making such statements,” the ECI has told Kharge.

Coming to the plea filed by the ADR, the letter states that without the absolute number of voter turnout data, the general public cannot compare the number of votes polled with the number of votes counted as announced in the results and thus, discrepancies, if any, in the two sets of data (no. of votes polled at polling booths and no. of votes counted by EVMs) can only be assessed when absolute numbers, and not merely percentages, for each constituency are released by the ECI.

“Unless the exact figures are brought in the public domain, percentage figures are meaningless for the voter,” the ADR letter says.