Is Rahul Gandhi's Request for Digital Voter Lists Legally Justifiable?

New Delhi, Jun 26 (NationPress) The ongoing request by the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide machine-readable digital versions of the electoral rolls for the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as well as for subsequent Vidhan Sabha elections, has been deemed legally unsound, according to constitutional experts and sources on Thursday.

A previous ruling from the Supreme Court has already clarified the issue in favor of the ECI. Experts suggest that Rahul Gandhi's repeated calls for 'machine-readable digital copies' are merely a public relations tactic, as the Supreme Court has previously rejected such a request.

In 2018, Kamal Nath, then president of the Madhya Pradesh Congress, filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking for soft copies of the draft electoral rolls in text format, along with various other requests.

The judgment from a bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan concluded that the format supplied to the petitioner met the requirements outlined in the Election Manual.

“We support the ECI's argument. Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual specifically mentions 'text mode'. The draft electoral roll was provided to the petitioner in that text mode. Nowhere does it state that the draft electoral roll must be available on the Chief Electoral Officer's website in a 'searchable PDF',” the court noted.

The Supreme Court remarked that if the petitioner wishes, they may convert it to a searchable format at “their own expense”. In an affidavit presented to the Supreme Court, the ECI asserted that they have deliberately chosen not to provide copies of the voter list to political parties in scannable text mode, prioritizing voter privacy.

The ECI stated that recognized political parties receive, at no cost, two versions of the electoral roll: one hard copy in pdf format that includes images of the electors, and another soft copy without images, at both draft and final publication stages as per the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Furthermore, even unrecognized registered political parties, NGOs, or the general public can acquire a soft copy of the electoral roll, sans images, on a CD in PDF format for just Rs 100, as per the commission.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the integrity of the ECI, stated in its ruling that “the citizens of this country largely trust this institution for its impartial execution of duties.”

Explaining the term “text mode” in the Election Manual, the Supreme Court asserted that it indicates that the draft electoral roll posted on the official website will exclusively contain “text” of the elector’s information, excluding “photographs/pictures/pictorial content,” and there is no requirement for the draft electoral roll to be uploaded as a “searchable PDF”.

It emphasized, “The petitioner cannot claim as a right that the draft electoral roll should be available on the website in ‘searchable mode’. It must solely be in ‘text mode’, which has been provided.”

The Supreme Court determined that the Election Manual does not grant the petitioner the right to receive the draft electoral roll in both text mode and as searchable, leaving the decision on format publication to the ECI.

The court recognized the ECI's position that this decision is crucial for preventing voter profiling and data mining, affirming that the ECI has a responsibility to implement all necessary precautions to safeguard voter privacy.

Insiders within the Election Commission have highlighted the Supreme Court ruling in light of LoP Rahul Gandhi's claims of “fixed elections” in Maharashtra last November and the ECI's invitation for him to clarify his doubts, which he has yet to accept.

“While it is accurate that Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition, has been demanding a machine-readable digital copy of the electoral roll for the past seven months, this request by the Congress is not unprecedented,” an official source stated.

It appears that this demand is part of a strategy by the Congress that has been ongoing for more than eight years, a fact that seems to have been selectively omitted in the current representation, he added.

“The historical stance of the Indian National Congress does not hold within the existing legal framework. It should be noted that this very matter has previously been contested by the Congress before the highest constitutional court in the country,” he stated.