SC seeks ECI’s response on increasing voters per polling station

Petitioner Indu Prakash Singh argued this disproportionately affects underprivileged groups and could deter voters due to longer queues and extended waiting times at polling stations

The Supreme Court on Monday emphasised the importance of ensuring that no voter is excluded from exercising their franchise, as it directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain its 2019 decision to raise the maximum number of voters per polling station from 1,200 to 1,500.

The court asked the ECI to submit an affidavit within three weeks. (ANI)

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner Indu Prakash Singh, who argued that the move disproportionately affects underprivileged groups and could deter voters due to longer queues and extended waiting times at polling stations. Singh claimed this change might lead to the effective exclusion of certain voters, undermining the democratic process.

Defending the move, senior advocate Maninder Singh stated that the policy, introduced five years ago, has not led to any substantial complaints so far. He also clarified that multiple polling booths within a station ensure a smoother voting process and that not all registered voters show up simultaneously. Adding that all political parties are consulted before any substantial decision is taken by ECI, Singh dismissed the petition as an indirect attack on the electronic voting machines (EVM) system, which the Supreme Court has upheld as credible in prior judgments.

The bench, however, asked ECI to submit an affidavit within three weeks explaining the rationale behind the decision and detailing measures taken to ensure that voters do not face delays or feel compelled to abandon the process. “We are concerned that no voter should be troubled,” observed the bench, fixing January 17 as the next date of hearing.

Prakash’s PIL has contended that the increase in the voter cap per polling station was arbitrary and unsupported by data. He argued that the move would result in overcrowded polling booths, particularly in areas with high voter turnout, causing significant delays and discouraging people from voting. The petition highlighted how, in booths with an 85-90% turnout rate, extended queues might lead to 20% of voters either being unable to vote within the designated hours or abandoning the process altogether.

The petitioner, represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shadan Farasat, pointed out that even with the use of EVMs, it takes 60-90 seconds for an individual to cast their vote. With an average voter turnout of 65.7%, polling stations with 1,500 registered voters could face logistical challenges, potentially leaving a segment of voters unable to participate.

The PIL argued that the ECI’s decision could adversely impact voter participation in states like Bihar and Delhi, where elections are scheduled next year. The petitioner emphasised that while EVMs reduce the time required to cast votes compared to ballot papers, the increased cap must be accompanied by adequate infrastructure to handle longer queues efficiently.

During the previous hearing of this case on October 24, the bench had refused to straightaway notice to the poll panel, asking Prakash to serve a copy of his petition on the standing counsel for ECI so that its position on the issue is known. After granting a preliminary hearing to Singh on behalf of ECI, the court asked the poll body to justify its decision, setting out to examine whether the increased voter cap imposes undue hardships on citizens, particularly in constituencies with high turnout rates.