MP Jairam Ramesh during the winter meeting of Parliament in New Delhi on Wednesday, December 18, 2024. Image source: PTI
The Supreme Court approved the election committee for three weeks on Thursday (April 17, 2025) in response to the defense of Congress Secretary-General Jairam Ramesh and others for the latest amendment to the 1961 election rules.
On January 15, the bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar sent a notice to the Centre and the polling team and sought a response.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh participated in the polling team and he sought a three-week reply.
The bench allowed Mr Singh’s prayers and set a July 21 cycle.
In addition to Mr Ramesh, Shyam Lal Pal and activist Anjali Bhardwaj submitted two similar Bills.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi represent Mr Ramesh.
The petitioner said the amendment to the 1961 election rules was “very clever” to prohibit any access to CCTV footage, claiming that it would reveal the identity of voters.
Mr Singhvi had previously said the vote choice was never revealed and CCTV footage could not reveal the vote and urged the bench to ask the poll team and the centre to respond by the next hearing day.
Mr Ramesh’s plea was filed in December and said “hope” that the Supreme Court will help “restore the rapid erosion of the electoral process”.
The government has adjusted an election rule to prevent the public from checking certain electronic files, such as CCTV cameras and webcast videos, in addition to candidates’ video recordings to prevent their abuse.
“The integrity of the election process is rapidly eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court can help restore it,” Ramesh said.
According to the EC’s recommendation, the December alliance law revised Article 93(2)(a) of the 1961 rule to limit the type of “paper” or the open document for public inspection.
Mr. Bhardwaj has challenged recent election rules in a separate plea filed by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, an amendment that allegedly limits the public’s chances of obtaining records related to the election.
PIL challenged the effectiveness of the 2024 Election Holdings (Second Amendment) rule and believed that the 93 (2) (a) amendment to the Election Rules, in 1961, violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, limiting citizens’ access to related documents related to important elections.
Prior to the amendment, it was noted that Rule 93(2)(a) provided that “all other papers related to the election should be open to the public”.
The request said: “This violated amendment is a blatant violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Constitution because it brings opacity and limits people’s fundamental right to obtain important documents and papers related to the election.”
The defense says the amendment attempts to narrow and limit public access to election-related records, Article 93 (2) (a) Election Rules, 1961 before the 2024 amendment.
The new amendment allegedly has amended the provision to “all other papers related to the election should be open to the public for inspection.”
The petitioner believes that the change introduces new and arbitrary restrictions on public access, thus limiting transparency in the election process.
The request stated that the amendment to the basic right to information covered by Article 19(1)(a) and the right to free and fair elections under Article 21, 21.
It claims the amendment restricts public review of election records, thus reducing transparency and potentially promoting corruption practices.
The request said that the amendment imposes arbitrary restrictions by restricting access to those records explicitly mentioned in the rules, excluding other records without reason.
It added that by restricting access to election documents, the amendment was seen as contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act, which promoted the government’s accountability and transparency.
publishing – April 17, 2025 at 2:02 pm IST
