'We're Concerned No Voter Should Be Troubled' : Supreme Court Seeks Election Commission's Explanation On Increasing Voters Per Polling Station From 1200 To 1500

The Supreme Court today sought an explanation from the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its decision to increase the voters per polling station from 1200 to 1500.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the PIL challenging Election Commission of India's communication(s) whereby the maximum number of electors per polling station have been increased from 1200 to 1500.

The CJI asked the ECI how the situation would be handled if more than 1500 people arrive at one polling station.

Sr Advocate Maninder Singh appearing for the ECI argued that the polling stations have been accommodating the increased number of voters since 2019 and before taking such a decision, all the political parties are consulted.

"Political parties are consulted for every booth before it is decided."

The CJI, while asking the ECI to file an affidavit explaining the reasoning for such a decision, verbally remarked, "File a short affidavit explaining the position, we are concerned that no voter should be troubled"

Justice Kumar also weighed in to inquire, "One polling station might have several polling booths, so would this (policy) apply to a single booth- polling station also?"

To which Singh replied that the affidavit would provide clarification on the above aspect.

The bench then ordered the ECI to file a short affidavit within 3 weeks.

Previously, the bench without issuing notice, directed that an advance copy of the petition be served upon the nominated/standing counsel for ECI, so they may obtain instructions on the factual position and appear in Court on the next date.

During the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the petitioner (a social activist) and argued that the increase in the number of voters per polling booth, from 1200 to 1500, creates challenges for voters and is an act of Voter Disenfranchisement. It was contended that the impugned ad-hoc decision(s) is likely to cause exclusion of underprivileged groups from the election process, as they cannot spare disproportionate amount of time for voting.

Reading clause 7.4(iii) of the impugned communication dated 07.08.2024, Singhvi explained that if there are upto 1500 electors at one polling booth, there would be no rationalization. Only if the number exceeds 1500, a new polling booth will come into picture. The senior counsel also referred to certain newspaper reports to highlight that voters get discouraged due to long queues/waiting periods and harsh weather conditions.

The matter will now be heard in January 2025.

Background

The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging communications dated 07.08.2024 and 23.08.2024 issued by ECI, to the extent that the number of electors at each polling station in each constituency has been increased.

It is stated that the issue concerns the whole country, and in the immediate future, states of Maharashtra, Bihar and Delhi (where elections are to be held soon).

As per the petitioner, the decision to increase the number of electors per polling station is not supported by any data and has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

"since 2011 there has been no census, and thus, the Election Commission has no fresh data to enhance the electors from 1200 to 1500...By increasing this limit, the Respondent No.1 has compromised the operational efficiency of polling stations, potentially leading to longer waiting times, overcrowding, and voter fatigue."

Reference is made to Section 25 of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with provision of polling stations in constituencies.

“Sufficiency” of polling stations under the law, ought to mean sufficient to not cause structural barriers to voting and enabling the voting by marginalised groups. Further, Section 25 of the said Act, will have to be read in a manner that strengthens the democracy rather than resulting even in the possibility of exclusion of electors- especially since with the introduction of EVMs, the actual process of casting and counting the votes has become rather easy as compared to what it was in 1951", the plea states.

Further, the petitioner claims that it takes about 60-90 seconds for one elector to cast their vote. As elections are typically held for 11 hours, this means only 495-660 persons can vote per polling station. Considering the average voting percentage of 65.7%, it is perceivable that a polling station prepared to accept 1000 electors can accommodate about 650 voters. However, there are booths where elector turnout is in the range of 85-90%.

"In such a situation, about 20% of voters will either end up standing in queue beyond the voting hours or due to long waiting times will abandon exercising their right to vote. Neither is acceptable in a progressive republic or a democracy."

To accommodate this large number of voters, there must be a proportional expansion in polling booth infrastructure, the petitioner says.

It is also mentioned that in 2016, the ECI directed that the maximum number of electors assigned to a polling station be limited to 1,200 in rural areas and 1,400 in urban areas. Now, with the number being enhanced again, there is possibility of disenfranchisement.

"this practice of increasing the upper limit per polling station is nothing but Voter Disenfranchisement...This results in disparate impact on marginalised communities and low-income groups particularly daily wagers, rickshaw pullers, maids, drivers, vendors, etc. for whom long waiting hours result in deprivation of wages."

The petitioner prays that the ECI maintain the number of electors per polling booth as 1200 (as done from 1957-2016) and have sufficient number of polling stations in terms of the mandate of Section 25 of the RP Act. Additionally, a direction is sought for ECI to,

"progressively (that is for future) reduce the number of electors per polling station, by removing structural/institutional barriers to the exercise of the right to vote, having regard to the principle of non-retrogression".

Case Title: INDU PRAKASH SINGH VERSUS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR., Diary No. 49052-2024