|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre's response on a batch of petitions seeking the introduction of a totaliser system for counting votes, observing that while the system could advance the principle of voter anonymity, its implementation involves policy considerations that cannot be resolved merely on the agreement of the Election Commission or the court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing pleas seeking directions for introducing totalisers, which mix votes cast across multiple polling booths before counting, thereby preventing the disclosure of booth-wise voting patterns. During the hearing, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, representing the petitioners, submitted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had initially recommended the introduction of the totaliser system. The petitioners noted, however, that the Commission's current response appears contrary to its earlier stand supporting the mechanism. Advocate Upadhyay submitted that mixing votes from 14 polling booths would serve the public interest by ensuring that no one can ascertain how many votes a particular candidate secured from an individual booth. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing another petitioner, submitted that under the current system, political parties sometimes intimidate voters by threatening to withhold basic amenities, such as electricity, if they do not vote for a specific candidate. He argued that a totaliser system would curb such practices by preventing the exposure of booth-level voting trends. The petitioners further contended that booth-wise disclosure exposes voters to post-poll violence, victimisation, and coercion, and that a totaliser would mitigate these risks by anonymising individual polling station results. The bench questioned the extent of the democratic benefit that would flow from the proposal, particularly when votes are currently counted in a transparent manner. "If I am counting manually, even if the machine is counted individually, I can see whether it is being tampered with. What is the great benefit democracy will get?" the CJI observed. The petitioners responded that the primary benefit remains the protection of voters from post-poll violence and victimisation, as mixing the votes would obscure how any specific booth voted. The Election Commission informed the court that it had previously recommended the introduction of the totaliser system to the Union government. The CJI, however, indicated that a writ of mandamus could be issued only if the court was satisfied that the measure was in the larger interest of democracy, particularly given that its implementation carries financial implications for the exchequer. The court also noted the ongoing involvement of a parliamentary panel, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Election Commission in examining the issue. During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi highlighted the competing considerations of voter anonymity and voter participation, noting that while totalisation is desirable in principle, practical and institutional hurdles remain. "On principle, totaliser is good for ensuring anonymisation. But the difficulty is that response or participation of the candidate is not possible with totaliser. You have indicated the roadblocks for introduction of totaliser; you have not denied them. Notwithstanding your recommendation and the Law Commission's recommendation, even if we are agreeable, what can we do? The Government will have to take a call. Let the Cabinet take a decision on totalisers. We cannot drag the unwilling horse. We would like to have the Union's view on this. When it comes to the general rule of totalisation, Section 59A is an emergency provision where there is perceptible ground reality of victimisation. You should actually argue that totalisation will empower your client," Justice Bagchi observed. The court referred to Section 59A of the Representation of the People Act, which provides for the use of voting machines or other mechanisms under specified circumstances, and discussed whether a broader statutory framework could be devised. It noted that the Law Commission had previously examined the issue and proposed a mechanism akin to Section 59A. The petitioners referred to the Law Commission's 255th Report, which recommended introducing Rule 66A into the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to provide a scheme for totalisation. The court indicated that despite support from the Election Commission and the Law Commission, the Union government's position must be formally ascertained before further directions can be considered. The matter has been slated for further hearing after the Centre files its response. (ANI)
|
