Author: Mantsha Khan, Integral University, Lucknow
Abstract
The amendments enacted in 2024 to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, particularly Rule 93, have incited considerable discourse regarding the conflicting principles of transparency and electoral integrity. This revision imposes limitations on public accessibility to election-related electronic documentation, including CCTV/webcasting recordings and certified duplicates of various forms, allowing for disclosure exclusively within judicial contexts or at the discretion of the Election Commission of India (ECI). This manuscript investigates the constitutional, legal, and political ramifications of the amendment, contextualizing it within the framework of Indian democracy and prevailing international electoral standards. It posits that although the tenets of electoral integrity and voter privacy are paramount, the imposition of absolute confidentiality is excessive, consequently undermining the Right to Information and eroding public confidence in electoral processes. The article advocates for reforms designed to reconcile the tenets of transparency with the imperative of electoral security.
Keywords: Rule 93, Electoral Integrity, Transparency, Right to Information, Election Commission, Indian Constitution, Electoral Law
I. Introduction
Elections are integral to the sustenance of democracy, encapsulating both the essence of popular sovereignty and the legitimacy of governance structures. In the Indian context, the constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections is vested in the Election Commission of India (ECI) as delineated in Articles 324–329 of the Constitution. This obligation is actualized through legislative frameworks such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
The amendments introduced in 2024 to the Conduct of Election Rules have substantially modified Rule 93, which had previously facilitated public access to electoral records. The newly revised regulation constrains access to digital and electronic records, including CCTV/webcasting materials, certified copies of Form 17C, and other sensitive documentation. Disclosure is now authorized predominantly through judicial mechanisms or if deemed necessary by the ECI in the interest of the public.
This amendment has resulted in a polarization of stakeholders’ perspectives. Proponents assert that it is imperative to mitigate disinformation, protect voter privacy, and uphold electoral integrity. Conversely, detractors argue that it compromises transparency, infringes upon the Right to Information Act, 2005, and may even violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution. This article rigorously evaluates these disparate viewpoints.
II. Research Problem
The primary inquiry pertains to whether the 2024 amendment to Rule 93 establishes a constitutionally sound equilibrium between transparency and electoral integrity, or if it excessively constrains access to electoral records, thereby compromising the principles of democratic accountability.
III. Objectives of the Study
To scrutinize the breadth and ramifications of the 2024 amendment to Rule 93.
To investigate whether the amendment contravenes constitutional tenets such as the principles of free and fair elections and the Right to Information.
To evaluate judicial interpretations regarding electoral transparency and confidentiality.
To conduct a comparative analysis of India’s electoral record-access framework in relation to international standards.
To propose amendments aimed at reconciling electoral integrity with transparency.
IV. Methodology
This study employs a doctrinal research methodology. Primary sources encompass the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Act of 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules of 1961. Judicial precedents, including PUCL v. Union of India (2003), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), are thoroughly examined. Secondary sources consist of reports from the Election Commission, recommendations from law commissions, scholarly analyses, and contemporary news articles. Comparative insights into the electoral frameworks of the USA and UK are also incorporated.
V. The Amendment: Rule 93 Before and After 2024
Previously, Rule 93 permitted public access to election-related documents contingent upon the payment of established fees. These documents were classified as public records under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.
The 2024 amendment introduced three significant modifications:
Restricted Access: Electronic and digital records are no longer readily accessible.
Judicial Exception: Access is granted predominantly in the context of judicial proceedings, such as election petitions.
ECI’s Discretion: The Election Commission is endowed with the authority to determine whether access may be permitted in the interest of the public.
This represents a transition from transparency being the standard to secrecy becoming the default presumption.
VI. Arguments in Favor of the Amendment
Protection Against Misuse: Unregulated access may enable the propagation of manipulated narratives and disinformation initiatives.
Voter Privacy: In alignment with Puttaswamy, privacy constitutes a fundamental right; unrestricted disclosure may inadvertently disclose voter preferences.
Electoral Integrity: Limiting access to sensitive data aids in mitigating allegations of widespread manipulation, thus preserving institutional credibility.
Administrative Efficiency: Addressing extensive RTI requests could impose significant demands on the resources of the ECI during pivotal electoral phases.
VII. Criticism of the Amendment
Right to Information: Section 22 of the RTI Act stipulates its overriding effect. Diminishing access compromises both statutory and constitutional assurances.
EVM Trust Deficit: In light of ongoing apprehensions regarding tampering, secrecy engenders suspicion rather than bolstering confidence.
Arbitrariness: Granting discretion solely to the ECI introduces potential subjectivity and undermines accountability.
Article 19(1)(a) Violation: In PUCL, the Supreme Court affirmed that electoral information constitutes a component of free speech.
Basic Structure Concerns: The principles of free and fair elections are essential to the basic structure; a lack of transparency risks undermining this cornerstone.
VIII. Judicial and Constitutional Dimensions
Current petitions pending adjudication before the Supreme Court (2024–2025) contest the constitutionality of the amendment in question.
Key doctrines relevant to this discourse include:
Doctrine of Proportionality: An overarching regime of secrecy may fail to satisfy the proportionality criteria established in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016.
Basic Structure Doctrine: According to the landmark ruling in Kesavananda Bharati, the principles of democracy and free electoral processes must remain inviolable.
Rule of Law: The principle of transparency is foundational to accountability and acts as a safeguard against arbitrary governmental actions.
IX. Comparative Perspectives
United States: In this jurisdiction, election audits and machine verifications are conducted publicly, accompanied by stringent safeguards to protect voter data.
United Kingdom: The access to electoral documentation is governed by regulatory frameworks, which are nonetheless upheld under the Representation of the People Regulations.
India (post-2024): The revised Rule 93 exhibits a more restrictive posture, steering India towards a state of opacity in contrast to other established democracies.
X. Reforms and Recommendations
Balanced Access Framework: The presumption of public access should be maintained as the standard, albeit subject to the redaction of sensitive voter information.
Independent Oversight: An impartial statutory body, distinct from the Election Commission of India (ECI), ought to adjudicate disputes concerning disclosure.
Time-Bound Embargo: Implementing temporary restrictions (e.g., a six-month period subsequent to elections) would facilitate a balance between privacy considerations and the imperative for transparency.
Strengthening Digital Security: Legislative measures aimed at combating deepfakes and electoral cyber offenses should be prioritized over the imposition of restrictions on legitimate access.
XI. Conclusion
The 2024 amendment to Rule 93 epitomizes the enduring conflict between the imperatives of electoral integrity and the necessity for transparency. Although the apprehensions surrounding privacy and potential misuse are legitimate, a regime of blanket secrecy is neither proportionate nor constitutionally defensible. Public trust in electoral processes is contingent not only upon the actual conduct of elections but also on the perceived fairness of these processes. By constraining transparency, the state risks subverting the very democratic principles it seeks to uphold.
A balanced approach—rooted in principles of proportionality, oversight, and accountability—is essential. Only through such a framework can India harmonize its dual commitments to transparent governance and secure electoral practices.
FAQS
Q1. What does Rule 93 regulate? Rule 93 delineates the parameters for public access to election-related records as stipulated under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Q2. What changed in 2024? The parameters governing public access to electronic records have been tightened. Disclosure now necessitates judicial proceedings or the discretion of the Election Commission.
Q3. Why is it controversial? Critics contend that it undermines transparency, contravenes the Right to Information Act, and diminishes trust in electoral processes.
Q4. What is the government’s justification? The rationale provided is to safeguard voter privacy, mitigate disinformation, and uphold the integrity of electoral processes.
Q5. What reforms are possible? Proposals for reform include the establishment of independent oversight, the introduction of time-bound disclosure protocols, and the implementation of privacy safeguards in lieu of blanket secrecy.
References
1. Constitution of India, Arts. 324–329.
2. Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (as amended, 2024).
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) AIR 2299.
5. PUCL v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399.
6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
7. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
8. Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353.
9. Election Commission of India, “Handbook for Returning Officers,” latest ed.
10. Association for Democratic Reforms, Election Watch Reports (2024).
11. LiveMint, “Congress moves SC against amendments to Conduct of Election Rules,” 2024.
12. Times of India, “SC examines Bihar SIR and electoral transparency,” 2025.
