Supreme Court News: The Supreme Court on Friday (24 May) heard the matter of making booth-wise voters’ data public. The petitions filed in the apex court said that the Election Commission should Lok Sabha Elections There should be a directive to upload booth-wise voter turnout data on the website within 48 hours after each phase of voting. The opposition has alleged that the data released by the Election Commission is being manipulated.
During the hearing, lawyer Maninder Singh, who appeared on behalf of the Election Commission, said that on April 26, the Supreme Court gave a detailed decision while rejecting a petition of the petitioner ADR. A new petition was filed on May 9 by hiding its information. This is a case of hiding facts from the court. On this basis, the new petition is not worth hearing. He said that confusion is being spread about the voting percentage, which will motivate voters not to vote.
High polling figures are wrong: Election Commission
The Election Commission’s lawyer said that in the decision of April 26, not only the issues raised in the present petition were also discussed. It was also written that a petition based on mere suspicions without any solid basis cannot be heard. Yet the same petitioner filed the petition again to confuse people in the middle of the elections. His petition should be dismissed with heavy damages.
He said that during elections, petitions regarding the process are not heard. This is the rule. The illusion is being spread that the final figure of voting is 5 to 6 percent more. This is absolutely wrong. The figure that comes on the app on the day of voting is not completely correct. The final figure comes later after verification. This system has been there since before.
Such petitions reduce the enthusiasm of voters: Election Commission
Lawyer Maninder Singh said that such petitions also reduce people’s enthusiasm for voting. Also, the voting percentage falls. He said that there are more than 8 thousand candidates and more than 10 lakh booths across the country. There is an agent of the candidate at every booth, that is, lakhs of people participate in this process on behalf of the candidates. Form 17C is made available to them on the same day.
During the hearing, the Election Commission’s lawyer said that in its 26 April decision, the Supreme Court itself has raised serious questions on the intentions of the petitioner ADR. They then filed a new petition. He said that a copy of that decision was deliberately not attached to the new petition.
Justice asked these questions to ADR’s lawyer
Justice Dipankar Dutta told ADR lawyer Dushyant Dave that before you present your case, we have some questions. What is your prayer? This is also in your original petition of 2019. How can the same demand be raised through an interim application in the middle of the elections? What should the court do if the situation changes in between? Why did you not raise the demand made in 2019 before 26 April and why did you file a new interim application after the decision?
Why was an interim application filed amid pending petition, SC asked the question
ADR lawyer Dushyant Dave said that this is a public interest litigation. There are no strict rules in this. On this, Justice Dutta said that this is right, but it is our job to keep an eye on the misuse of the process. We are not saying right now that your demand is not worth hearing, but why did you suddenly file an interim application in the middle of the petition pending since 2019? You should have fought the main case. Maybe you would have been successful too.
Lawyer Dushyant Dave said that the Election Commission changed the data in between, that’s why we came. On this, Justice Dutta said that in the previous case (EVM-VVPAT) neither you nor Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared. You do not know that the court had taken answers from the Election Commission official on the data coming in the app and the changes made later.
Your petition is like ‘come bull and kill me’: Supreme Court
Justice Dutta said that the Election Commission had also informed that there is no legal obligation to upload 17C on the website. The court had noted this. Your new petition is like ‘Aa Bail Mujhe Maar’. Lawyer Dushyant Dave said that we also do not trust the Election Commission. On this statement of his, Election Commission’s lawyer Maninder Singh said that you make fun of the Commission outside the court.
Supreme Court will hear the petition after the holidays
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, lawyer of TMC leader Mahua Moitra, said that I agree that there is the same prayer in both the petitions, but my client could not even get the documents of her petition, because she no longer has any relationship with those who had them.
Justice Dutta said that we are not in favour of giving any relief right now. The petition is not being dismissed. It is just being kept pending for detailed hearing later. The matter should be put up for hearing after the holidays. The court also said that 5 out of 7 phases of the election have been completed. It would not be right to put pressure on the commission to change the process in the middle of the election.
