​Free and fair: On the Election Commission, calls for transparency  

The Election Commission of India (ECI) seems to have softened its stand about disclosing absolute numbers of booth-wise votes cast in elections. Last year, when the question arose in the midst of the multi-phase general election, the ECI took the position that it had no legal mandate to disclose details of Form 17-C, part one, which contains the total number of electors in each booth and those who had actually voted, to anyone other than the candidate or its polling agent. In a recent hearing, it has said the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, who took over recently, is open to meeting representatives of organisations and individuals who have sought a direction to the ECI to upload scanned, authenticated and legible copies of Form 17-C on its website. The Supreme Court of India has asked Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra and representatives of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) to give a representation to the ECI and seek a meeting. While it may not mean that the ECI has already agreed to make absolute numbers of voters universally available, it may result in evolving a system of disclosure about turnouts, both in terms of numbers and percentages. In 2024, the ECI did release some details about turnout through its voter turnout app, but it also became a source of endless speculation as the percentages given were seen to be unusually higher than what was disclosed at the close of polling.

The prevalence of a difference of five to six percentage points between the turnout declared on polling day and subsequently revised figures, based on inputs from all booths, was noted at the end. This is normally explained as the result of a delay in collation of data from all booths, including those located in far-flung areas. However, the petitioners before the Court argue that Form 17-C is collected by available booth agents by hand, and it would not be a major problem for election officials to scan and upload it within 48 hours. The main grouse of political parties and activists is that the discrepancies, in the absence of the absolute number of votes cast but with only turnout percentages in hand, would raise suspicions about the whole process when the final results are released. The ECI has done well to offer to meet the petitioners on this question. There can be no dogmatic opposition to a procedural step to reduce the apprehension about any election being less than fair. It is futile to hold the position that every step demanding greater transparency in the electoral process is aimed at undermining its integrity or casting the process in a bad light. There ought to be a constant reassessment of existing procedures and practices to increase transparency and reduce the time taken to do so.