Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging ECI's Directive Prohibiting Mobile Phones In Polling Booths

The PIL was filed by one Ujala Shyambihari Yadav, who claimed to be an 'active member" of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS). The petitioner challenged the ECI's notification dated 10 June 2023, which prohibited the use of cell phones by voters within use within 100 metres of polling stations.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar heard the matter today.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the voters must be allowed to carry mobile phones to show proof of identity through 'DigiLocker'. The petitioner relied on Rule 9A of Information Technology (Preservation and Retention of Information by Intermediaries Providing Digital Locker Facilities) Amendment Rules, 2017, which provides that the documents available via Digital Locker are to be treated at par with original physical documents.

The counsel further contended that not allowing mobile phones was a hindrance to paperless governance and relied on the circular issued by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology dated 22 January 2018. The said circular stated that State Government Departments can use the DigLocker as an issuer, requestor or verifier of documents.

The ECI's counsel however argued that the prohibition of mobile phones in polling stations ensures smooth and violence-free elections. The counsel argued that the technology available in mobile phones raises apprehensions about its misuse and thus to check any untoward incidents, ECI issued the notification.

The ECI's counsel relied on Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections with the Election Commission. It was contended that the ECI has plenary powers to issue directions for the conduct of peaceful elections and that a ban on mobile phones does not contravene any legal rights of voters.

The Court agreed with the ECI's counsel that Article 324 of the Constitution provides the Commission with superintendence and control of elections.

The Court observed that Rule 9A of the IT Rules 2017 do not create any right on the petitioner or anyone else to use DigiLockers to verify identity during voting process.

The petitioner's counsel requested the Court to issue guidelines to use DigiLockers as a means of identification at polling stations for those who cannot carry physical identification. However, the Court was not inclined to do so.

The CJ orally remarked that the election is a cumbersome process and that allowing mobile phones in polling stations might pose a potential risk.

“How cumbersome is the process of holding elections...saying that digilocker should be permitted seems innocuous, but see the potential misuse. It has been very difficult for the country to check election violence..but it is only due to empowerment of Election Commission of India that you see the elections that are now taking place...” the CJ said.

Considering the overall submissions, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case title: Ujala Shyambihari Yadav vs. The Election Commission Of India (PIL(L)/33837/2024) 

Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 595