A deep look at the New Rules.
ECI has recently strengthened its order about the destruction of the CCTV camera, webcasting, video recording of the election processes after 45 days unless an election petition challenging the results is filed of that type. This step in addition to a wider limitation of public access to such electronic documents has sparked a debate concerning the fine line between the need to maintain a transparent vote and the need to maintain the privacy of a voter.
The position of the ECI is also evident, though it is difficult to trust these recordings because they can be used as a useful tool of internal management to control its election process, but at the same time, its publishing has some considerable perils. 45 days follow the legal window provided to challenge the results of the election in a High Court. In a case where a petition is done, footage is stored and submitted to the court as testimony. But in case no objection is raised, the filmed material is supposed to be destroyed.
The justification as given by the Justification: ECI: Protection of voter secrecy
This policy is justified mainly because of the security of voters and the secrecy of votes as given by the Election Commission. ECI officials remind that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 128 assures that the process of voting is a secret one and with failure thereof to breach the confidentiality provided through this act, one shall be punishable under it. They say that the presence of polling station video footage publicly would serve to expose:
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
- Voter identities: The video shows people going in and out of polling stations, therefore voters could be identified.
- The pattern of voting: A comparison between the people who vote and the ones who do not vote in certain concentrations of the city may help reach a conclusion about the voting pattern of the community or group.
- Non-voting: The court has confirmed the right to vote and secrecy of the option is also guaranteed as per the right to privacy. Finding non-voters might result in harassing or discriminating against them.
The ECI is worried about the potential that publicly available such subscriptions of information may be exploited to profile, harass, intimidate or even retaliate against those people or groups who have become politically inconvenient. They also mention the possibility of spreading such footage for the purpose of misinformation and malicious stories, with the problem being that such footage can be used on social media after the election results have been announced and the legal challenge period has passed.
Authorities have made a comparison between CCTV and Form 17A, a confidential form kept at polling stations containing details about voters. Form 17A is not transparent, and it can be studied only under the control of the court. The ECI points to the fact that the video footage contains comparable sensitive information, so its official announcement by public authorities without legal approval would be unacceptable either.
Issues raised: accountability and transparency
In spite of the privacy concerns of the ECI, the 45 days storage regulation, and the limited access to it has been criticized by the political parties and the civil society groups, and even advocates of transparency. Critics maintain that such a policy will be a threat to transparency and accountability in electoral processes, more so in a digital era where transparency is highly required.
Among the primary reasons to reject the policy is the fact that the restriction of access to such essential evidence by the public makes it more difficult to track and establish electoral malpractices. Failure to give an independent view on what happens at the polling stations through the help of video recordings can create suspicion of doubt in an election event that highly depends on the trust of the people. While the ECI claims that the footage is used as an internal management tool, the fact that it is not publicly available, even in the form of a reasonable time frame, is viewed by certain political circles as another backward step towards transparency.
The tendency has raised strong concerns by opposition leaders and some supporters, who claimed that the rule may be aimed at “deleting evidence” and obstructing reports about the alleged irregularities. There is an argument that full access to such footage, possibly with suitable anonymization or protection, is an essential point in the event of fairness and renewed confidence in the electoral process. Even the timing of the changes to the rules has also raised eyebrows especially following recent elections which have been marked with a lot of allegations of electoral discrepancies.
The legal, administrative and constitutional perspective
The controversy over the rule of ECI CCTV footage strikes the core of rights and Indian laws. This discussion has assumed the great significance of the Right to Privacy as upheld by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right for citizens. The ECI rightly accents the fact that it has a constitutional duty to uphold this right, the secrecy of vote.
Nevertheless, the other element of a healthy democracy, the Right to Information also matters significantly. Citizens are entitled to knowledge of the electoral process and its purity. The difficulty is to strike a compromise in which the privacy of the voters will be respected, not to the point, however, that the people will lose the power to inquire and hold the electoral circuit to account.
A set of existing legal frameworks (such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the conduct of election rules, 1961) regulate diverse issues regarding elections, such as the availability and maintenance of the documents for elections. Even the recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules (no. 93) which currently prohibits access to even electronic documents, such as CCTV footage, recorded by a public authority to be inspected by the population have been put before the Supreme Court which in turn shows that this issue has its tendencies towards legal complexities.
The Future: The Future Path
The 45-day retention rule that regards CCTV footage under the Election Commission reveals a complicated situation in contemporary democracy. On the one hand, the necessity to secure the personal privacy of voters and avoid the leakage of their personal and sensitive information is crucial. The need to have more transparency in elections particularly, with the rampant involvement of technology, is an equally valid concern on the other side of the scale as well.
It is possible that an agreement will have to be reached through persistent consultations between ECI, political parties, civil society, and legal experts. Possible solutions may include the investigation of such technological advancements that will make it possible to anonymize the identity of voters in footage, yet still have a visual chart of the voting proceedings that will be taken out during the audit. Strict guidelines on what can be considered malicious narratives, an effective independent system to investigate and the testing of it and a clear process that allows access to footage for certain, clearly defined and legally based reasons, could also help.
Finally, all democratic nations have to make sure that they conduct free and fair elections that should be perceived by the population. The ability to find a happy medium between the ideas of privacy and transparency will become the key to the enhanced success and reputation of the Indian electoral system in the digital age.
