Why Vijay Rupani resigned as Gujarat CM and how it might help BJP

New Delhi: The Ministry of Law and Justice of Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government has made an amendment to the Conduct of Election Rules, restricting public access to certain electoral documents that were previously available.

The original Rule 93(2)(a) of the 1961 Conduct of Election Rules stated, “all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection.” However, following the amendment on Friday, the rule now reads, “all other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection.”

Activists have raised concerns, claiming that the insertion of the phrase “as specified in these rules” limits access to various official documents created during elections to Parliament and Assemblies, which are not explicitly mentioned in the rules.

RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak pointed out that there are numerous documents, though not listed in the rules, that are generated by election officials such as Presiding Officers, Sector Officers (responsible for constituency vulnerability mapping), and those in charge of EVM movement and replacement of defective machines on polling day. These include reports from general, police, and expenditure observers, as well as Returning Officers and Chief Electoral Officers.

Nayak emphasized, “Access to these documents is crucial for ensuring the fairness of elections and the accuracy of results.”

The amendment comes shortly after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Election Commission to provide video footage and documents related to votes cast at a polling station in the recent Haryana Assembly elections to lawyer Mehmood Pracha. Pracha has criticized the amendment, asserting that it will withhold essential information. “This is a reconfirmation of the Election Commission’s bias,” he said.

Nayak further stated, “This amendment undermines the principle of full transparency established by the Supreme Court in the Electoral Bonds case. The notification of this amendment on the very day Parliament was adjourned sine die has deprived MPs of the opportunity to challenge its necessity in real time.”

The Supreme Court on Monday while hearing a petition against the stand of Karnataka High Court's view that shouting 'Jai Sriram' inside a mosque was not an offence, sought the stand of the State of Karnataka in the matter.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter.

"Alright, they were shouting a particular religious slogan. How is that an offence?" Justice Mehta asked, as bench posted the matter for January 2025.

The bench asked if the accused persons had been identified. Kamat replied that CCT visuals had been collected and the police identified the accused persons, as recorded in the remand report. The bench asked if merely spotting the accused near the mosque would mean that they shouted the slogans.

"Are you able to identify the actual accused? What material you have brought?" the Court asked. Kamat clarified that he was only representing the complainant (caretaker of the mosque) and it is for the police to conduct the investigation and collect the evidence. The FIR need only give information about the offence and need not be an 'encyclopedia' containing all evidence, he added.

This comes after a petition was filed in the Supreme Court questioning the Karnataka High Court's order of September 13, 2024 which quashed an FIR lodged against two men for raising the 'Jai Shri Ram' slogan within mosque premises.

The high court's single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had said, "It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Shri Ram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class, when the complainant himself states that Hindu - Muslims are living in harmony in the area".