Is Rahul Gandhi's Demand for Digital Voter Lists Legally Valid? Experts Weigh In

Legal Perspectives on Rahul Gandhi's Demand

New Delhi: Constitutional experts have indicated that the ongoing request by Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, for machine-readable digital versions of voter lists for the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha and state assembly elections may not hold legal ground.

Insiders from the Election Commission of India (ECI) have pointed out that a previous ruling by the Supreme Court has already addressed this issue in favor of the election authority.

They argue that Gandhi's insistence on obtaining 'machine-readable digital copies' is largely a publicity maneuver, given that the Supreme Court has previously dismissed such requests.

The ECI shared details from a Supreme Court ruling related to a 2018 writ petition by Kamal Nath, then president of the Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee, which stated, 'The format in which the draft electoral roll is supplied to the petitioner meets the requirements outlined in the Election Manual.'

The ruling further noted, 'If the petitioner wishes, he can convert it into a searchable format, but that would require his own efforts.'

This context comes after Gandhi's claims of a 'fixed election' in Maharashtra last November, alongside the ECI's invitation for him to clarify his doubts, which he has yet to accept.

An official source acknowledged that while Gandhi has been vocal about his demand for a machine-readable electoral roll for several months, this request is not a new tactic for the Congress party.

This demand appears to be part of a broader strategy that the Congress has employed for over eight years, a detail that seems to have been overlooked in the current discourse.

The source emphasized that the historical stance of the Indian National Congress does not align with the existing legal framework, recalling that this issue has been previously raised before the Supreme Court.

An ECI insider referenced the Supreme Court's decision, which stated, 'We find merit in the ECI's argument. Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual specifies 'text mode.' The draft electoral roll has been provided in that format. The clause does not mandate that the draft electoral roll be available on the Chief Electoral Officer's website in a 'searchable PDF.'

'Thus, the petitioner cannot assert a right to have the draft electoral roll available in a 'searchable mode.' It is sufficient for it to be in 'text mode,' which has been provided,' the Supreme Court's ruling concluded.