KAMAL NATH versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 12 October 2018

842

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 12 S.C.R. 842

[2018] 12 S.C.R.

KAMAL NATH

A

v.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 935 of 2018)

BOCTOBER 12, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Election laws: Election Manual 2016 – Chapter XI – Clause11.2.2.2 – Putting draft roll on website – Petitioner seekingpublishing/providing of soft copies of draft electoral rolls to politicalCparties in text format-searchable PDF format – Held: Clause11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual uses the expression ‘text mode’ –Draft electoral roll in the text mode, supplied to the petitioner fulfillsthe requirement contained in the Election Manual – Clause nowheresays that the draft electoral roll has to be put up on the Chief ElectoralDOfficer’s website in a ‘searchable PDF’ – Therefore, the petitionercannot claim, as a right, that the draft electoral roll should be placedon the website in a ‘searchable mode’ – Furthermore, since Clause11.2.2.2 does not entitle the petitioner to get the draft electoral rollin the text mode which is searchable as well viz. in ‘full text search’form, it is for the ECI to decide about the format in which the draftEelectoral roll is to be published – Issues of privacy of voters areinvolved and the move of ECI is aimed at prevention of voter profilingand data mining.

Dismissing the writ petitions, the Court FHELD: 1.1 The ECI claims that it took all necessary stepsin this behalf. ECI gave a detailed reply to the petitioner and hispolitical party, that the complaint of the petitioner and the politicalparty to which he is affiliated regarding duplication/multiplicationof voters had been rectified. Furthermore, ECI also supplied acopy of the rectified draft electoral roll to the petitioner, and theGpolitical party to which he is affiliated, on July 31, 2018. It wasalso stated at the bar that ECI has also now published the FinalElectoral Roll on September 27, 2018 and supplied a copy of thesame to the petitioner (and his political party) wherein all suchdefects/discrepancies find no place as they have already beenHrectified earlier. The ECI explained that revision and updation of the electoral roll is a continuous process, which the ECI isdiligently pursuing continuously. [Para 17, 18] [852-A-B, C-D]

1.2 Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual places anobligation on the ECI to put the draft roll on its website in PDFformat. The purpose is to bring it in public domain so that eachvoter is able to access the same and find out whether his/hername is correctly shown and in case of any error, the said voter isin a position to get the same rectified. Likewise, in case a particularvoter is missing from the list, that individual would be in a positionto take up the matter with the ECI for inclusion of his/her name.A copy thereof is also given to the political parties as well, becausethese political parties have equal interest in ensuring that theaforesaid mistakes are removed. They can additionally check asto whether there are duplicate or fake voters also in the list andseek correction thereof. However, the second part of the saidclause mentions that draft roll would be put in a ‘text mode’. Italso states that no photograph would appear against the electors’details. [Para 19]. [852-E-F; 853-A-B]

1.3 The counsel for ECI submitted that the use of the phrase‘text mode’ in Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual only meansthat the draft electoral roll put up on the Chief Electoral Officer’swebsite shall only contain ‘text’ of the elector’s details and nothis/her ‘photographs/pictures/pictorial content’; that every PDFdocument, whether it is a searchable or non-searchable/ImagePDF and which contains any text content in a ‘Text Mode’ is PDFin that sense; that there is nothing called a ‘Text Mode’ formatof a PDF document; and that a simple ‘Google search’ in thatregard would also clearly and conclusively establish the same.There is force in the submission of the ECI. Clause 11.2.2.2 ofthe Election Manual uses the expression ‘text mode’. The draftelectoral roll in that mode, i.e. text mode, has been supplied tothe petitioner. The clause nowhere says that the draft electoralroll has to be put up on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website in a‘searchable PDF’. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim, as aright, that the draft electoral roll should be placed on the websitein a ‘searchable mode’. It has only to be in ‘text mode’ and it isso provided. The document from Wikipedia relied upon by thepetitioner relates to ‘full text search’ and not ‘text mode’.

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

AObviously, when the said document explains how ‘full text search’is to be undertaken, the explanation would be that it is a searchengine which examines all of the words in every stored documentsand would provide full text searching techniques as well.However, the absence of the words ‘search’ in Clause 11.2.2.2would make all the difference. [Paras 20-22] [854-A-E]

B

1.4 It is rightly explained by the ECI that PDF documentsare primarily of two types/formats, namely “Image-only” orScanned PDFs-when scanning hard copy documents on MFPsand office scanners, or when converting a camera image, jpg, tiffor screenshot into a PDF, the content is “locked” in a snapshot-Clike image, without an underlying text layer. Such image-only PDFdocuments contain just the scanned/photographed images ofpages. Image-only PDF files are not searchable, and their textusually cannot be selected, searched or copied; and searchablePDFs-In Searchable PDFs, a text layer is added to the image Dlayer, usually placed underneath. Such PDF files are almostindistinguishable from the original documents and are fullysearchable. Text in searchable PDF documents can be selected,searched and copied. [Para 23] [854-F-H]

1.5 Once it is found that Clause 11.2.2.2 does not entitleEthe petitioner to get the draft electoral roll in the text mode whichis searchable as well viz. in ‘full text search’ form, it is for theECI to decide about the format in which the draft electoral roll isto be published. ECI has given the reasons for not adhering tothe request of the petitioner in providing draft electoral roll insearchable PDF format. According to it, issues of privacy of votersFare involved and the move of ECI is aimed at prevention of voterprofiling and data mining. According to ECI, ensuring free andfair elections, to which it is committed, also necessitates thatECI is duty bound to protect the privacy and profiling of electors.Therefore, it is duty bound to take all precautionary measures.GHowever, it is not necessary to go into this aspect. [Para 24][855-A-C]

1.6 On reading and interpreting Clause 11.2.2.2 of theElection Manual in the aforesaid manner, the decision taken bythe ECI which is contained in its Instructions dated January 4,H2018 becomes relevant. In those Instructions, ECI has directed its field level functionaries to put only the ‘Image PDF’ of electoralroll in the public domain. The format in which the draft electoralroll is supplied to the petitioner fulfills the requirement containedin the Election Manual. If the petitioner so wants, he can alwaysconvert it into searchable mode which, of course, would requirehim to put his own efforts. [Para 25] [855-C-E]

Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 8 SCC237 : [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 366;K.S. Puttaswamy andAnother v. Union of India and Others (2017) 10 SCC1;Prakash Joshi v. Election Commission of IndiaOctober 30, 2017 in W.P. (C) No. 983 of 2017 –referred to.

Case Law Reference

(2017) 10 SCC 1referred to

Para 13

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)No. 935 of 2018

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India WITH

W.P. (C) No. 1000/2018.

Kapil Sibal, Vivek Tankha, Anoop Chaudhary, Vikas Singh, Sr.Advs., Varun Chopra, Naman Joshi, Prashant Sivarajan, Ms. SangeetaJosi, Varun Tankha, Aljo K. Joseph, Amit Sharma, Advs. for the appearingparties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 935 of 2018 is filedby the petitioner, who is the President of the Madhya Pradesh CongressCommittee, claiming the following reliefs:

“(a)Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to theRespondents to issue directions for conducting VVPATverification at least 10% randomly selected polling stations ineach assembly constituency/assembly segment to ensure freeand fair elections; (b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to theRespondents to publish voter list in text format as per rules, andto expeditiously decide all complaints qua final publication of voterlist under Rules 22(1)(c) of the Registration of Electors Rules, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A1960 and to prohibit deletion of voters from the voter list withoutintimation to political parties;

(c) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to theRespondents to issue fresh guidelines qua VVPAT whilstconsidering the grounds/issues raised in the present writ petition,Bincluding but not limited to random VVPAT checks, mock pollsand recounting, quality of Thermal Paper and printing, collectionof Paper Trails and storage, unique identification numbers onVVPAT and paper trail collection boxes, transportation of EVMsand VVPAT before and after polls, First Level Checking (FLC)of VVPAT and posting of officials; andC

(d) any such further and other order/orders be passed as maybe necessary and deemed fit and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the case to subserve the interest of justice.

2. As can be seen from the aforesaid prayer clause, essentiallytwo reliefs are prayed for. First relief is for issuance of directions forDconducting Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) verification onrandom basis for 10% of the votes. In the second place, direction issought to provide to the petitioner soft copies of the draft electoral rollspublished on July 31, 2018 in text format; to decide complaints pertainingto voter list expeditiously; and to prohibit deletion of voters from theEvoter list without intimation to the political parties.

3. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1000 of 2018, similar reliefs werepressed. However, the facts as they appear in Writ Petition (Civil) No.935 of 2018 are taken note of.

4. We would like to place on record, at the outset, that the detailedFarguments which were advanced by the petitioner were highlyconcentrated on the second prayer, that too for providing soft copies ofthe draft electoral rolls in text format. Insofar as the first relief isconcerned, objection was raised by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned seniorcounsel appearing for respondent No.1 – Election Commission of India(hereinafter referred to as ‘ECI’), to the maintainability of such a prayerGon the ground that this issue has already been dealt with by this Court.We will take note of the respective submissions on this aspect at theappropriate stage. Since, the second prayer has become the bone ofcontention, in the first instance, we would like to deal with that aspect.

5. The main reason for which the petitioner is seeking directionto the respondents to publish voter list in text format and supply thesame is that it is necessitated to ensure that the voter list is properly andfairly drawn, which includes all the eligible voters on the one hand andalso excludes the duplicate, fake or incorrect voters. It is stated by thepetitioner that he along with senior leaders from the State of MadhyaPradesh submitted a detailed representation on June 03, 2018 highlightingvarious duplicate, repeat, multiple, illegal, invalid and false entries/votersin the electoral rolls of Madhya Pradesh for Assembly Elections, 2018and the ECI was requested to address the same. As per the petitioner,there is an increase by 40% in numbers of voters vis-a-vis populationnumbers of electors in the State of Madhya Pradesh since the lastAssembly Election, i.e. in the last five years. It is contended that ifvoters/electors with birth year 1991-2001 will attain age of 18 yearsbetween 2008-2018, it can be reasonably expected that new voters addedin the years 2008-2018 would be similar to the increase in population i.e.1,18,18,290. However, it is shocking and alarming to see that increase intotal number of voters i.e. 1,45,13,404 (more than 40% increase) in thecorresponding increase in population during 2008-2018. Therefore, thisadditional increase over and above the population increase i.e. 26.95lakhs of votes in the State of Madhya Pradesh seems inconceivable andincalculable.

6. The petitioner, accordingly, made representations to the ECIto take appropriate action to rectify the mistakes. The ECI sent letterdated July 16, 2018 to the All India Congress Committee (AICC), interalia, stating that the allegations made in the representation dated June03, 2018 preferred by the petitioner are not substantiated. At the sametime, the ECI had also admitted, to the following effect, that there weresome duplicate and fake entries in the voter list:

“(a) INTRA AC – 9664 were found in the repeated entry (b) INTER AC – 8278 cases were found in the repeated entry

(c) Photo Entries – 2,37,234 photo entries found to be suspicious/unclear/blank photos;”

7. The petitioner also submits that the ECI has, thereafter,dropped more than twenty four lakh voters from the voter list of theState of Madhya Pradesh published in January 2018. The ECI has alsoadmitted that 2,37,234 photo entries are found to be suspicious, unclearand blank photos. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioner submits that A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe political parties should be provided voter list in text format so thatthey are in a position to electronically scan the same and find out whetherthere are any duplicate or fake voters in the voter list prepared by theECI.

8. In support of the aforesaid demand of supply of electoral rollBin PDF form in text mode, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel,referred to Clause 11.2.2.2 of Chapter XI of the Election Manual 2016which reads as under:

“11.2.2.2 Putting draft roll on website:- Additionally, the draftroll shall be put in public domain, at Chief Electoral Officer’sCwebsite, in a PDF format on the same day. The draft roll shallbe put on website in a text mode and no photographs wouldappear against the elector’s details. Instead it would indicate inthe box meant for the photograph of elector whether thephotograph is available or not.”

D9. It was argued that as per the aforesaid clause contained inthe Election Manual itself, the ECI was required to prepare the draft rollin text mode, al beit without photographs. The purpose was to enablethe political parties to analyse and scrutinise the data and based thereuponto give any suggestions that are needed or submit objections if it is foundthat there are duplicate or fake voters. As against the aforesaid mandate,Ethe ECI has provided Compact Discs (CDs) containing draft electoralroll published on July 31, 2018 in PDF non-editable form for all 230constituencies of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Such scanned copiesare in fact images and, therefore, inadequate for the purpose of scrutinywherein data cannot be analysed. It is also stated that in 2013 AssemblyFElections in Madhya Pradesh, draft electoral rolls were provided in textmode. Similarly, draft electoral rolls, as published on July 31, 2018 forthe State of Rajasthan, have also been provided in text mode. Departuremade in the instant case is questioned as unreasonable.

10. The ECI has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated thatGthe ECI has put the voter list on website in text mode and even imageson the website are in text mode. However, the ECI has taken a consciousdecision not to give copies of these voter list to the political parties inscannable text mode keeping in view the issue of privacy of voters.Various averments in the writ petition are strongly refuted in the counteraffidavit. The ECI has stated that the petitioner had submitted aH

representation dated June 03, 2018 regarding various duplicate, repeat,multiple entries/voters in the electoral rolls of Madhya Pradesh forAssembly elections. As per the complaint received, 26.76 lakh recordswere submitted for ‘Within AC’ of 91 Constituencies and 26.74 lakhrecords of ‘Across AC’ of 101 Constituencies. All these entires havebeen verified physically in a door-to-door campaign. In physicalverification, 23,67,487 electors were found present, 2,34,596 electorswere either deleted already or not found enrolled in the respectiveconstituencies. In 46,859 cases, electors were found to be absent and16,675 electors were found to be deceased. In all such cases, the actionfor deletion has already been taken. It is emphasised that only 8,728cases were found in the repeated entry category against whichappropriate action has already been initiated as per law.

11. The ECI accepts that during the process of continuous updationfrom January 19, 2018 to July 31, 2018, there was a net deletion ofaround 24 lakhs entries from the electoral roll and it is also correct thatmore than 2 lakh photo entries were flagged as being unclear/blank/repeated photos but out of these entries, 1,04,284 entries were found tobe valid and only 97,687 entries had to be corrected during theaforementioned continuous updation of the electoral roll. Explanationgiven is that electoral roll updation is a continuous and ongoing processand the ECI as well as the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, MadhyaPradesh are committed to ensuring the purity and correctness of theelectoral roll through continuous addition or deletion of names of electorson the basis of door-to-door survey by Block Level Officers (BLOs)and by processing all sort of information gathered through NSVP, CEOwebsite or complaints received through the helpline number (1950), etc.

12. It is also claimed that the ECI has been taking transparencymeasures in electoral registration. The recognized political parties aresupplied, free of cost, two copies (one hard copy in pdf with image ofelectors and another in soft copy without image of electors) of the electoralroll of the constituencies at the time of draft publication and finalpublication under the provision of Rule 11(c) and 22(c) of the Registrationof Electors Rules, 1960. Further, the unrecognized registered politicalparties/NGOs/public can obtain soft copy of the electoral roll (withoutimages of electors) in a CD in pdf format on a nominal price of Rs.100/-only per CD, containing the electoral roll of an Assembly Constituency,on request. In addition to the above, as per the ECI’s existing instructions, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aimage PDF of electoral rolls are published on website of Chief ElectoralOfficer of the State concerned so as to be placed in the public domainfor view of general public. The general public can access such imagePDF of electoral rolls through captcha containing alphabet, numeral andspecial characters.B13. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, Mr. Vikas Singh B13. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, Mr. Vikas Singhargued that the ECI itself does the exercise of de-duplication which wasinformed to the political parties also in the meeting which was conductedby it. He also submitted with vehemence that representation dated June03, 2018 of the petitioner was replied on June 08, 2018 wherein it wasclearly stated that corrections had already been carried out. AccordingCto him, these corrections took place on May 25, 2018 itself, i.e. evenbefore the representation dated June 03, 2018 was submitted by thepetitioner. It was duly communicated on June 08, 2018. Thereafter,draft voter list was published on July 31, 2018 wherein all the concernshave already been taken care of. Highlighting the issue of privacy ofDvoters, it was argued by Mr. Vikas Singh that in case voter list is suppliedin text form, it will enable data mining of various nature. For this reason,there was a re-look into the matter and the ECI had decided to providethe list in image form. It was submitted that Clause 11.2.2.2 of ChapterXI of Election Manual 2016, on which reliance was placed, does not require supply of draft voter list in searchable text mode. In any case, itEwas only an administrative manual and had no statutory force. This canalways be suitably amended by the ECI having regard to the exigencies.Therefore, there was a conscious decision in the form of instructionsdated January 4, 2018 to supply non-searchable text mode in view of thesafety and privacy concerns of the voters. Mr. Vikas Singh submittedFthat right to privacy has now been recognised as a fundamental right inK.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others[1] and itbecomes the duty of the ECI to take care of that.

14. It can be discerned that the real issue is whether voter list isto be supplied to the political parties in text mode; albeit in PDF form.GTherefore, our discussion concentrates on this issue.

15. There is no doubt about the bona fides of the ECI. It is amatter of record that in the last 25-30 years, ECI has built up the reputationof an impartial body which strives to hold fair elections. It is a 1 (2017) 10 SCC 1H

Constitutional Authority and has been discharging its functions quitesatisfactorily. People of this country, by and large, trust this institutionfor its impartial manner of discharging its functions. That is absolutelyessential as well in a democratic polity where ‘We, the people’ elect therepresentatives to the legislative assemblies of the State as well asParliament at the Centre. It is the will of the people which should betruly translated into reality. In that sense, the function of ECI becomesvery important and it is supposed to discharge the same with utmostintegrity, impartiality and objectivity. In re: Special Reference No.1 of2002[2], this Court emphasised the importance of Election Commission inthe following manner:

“105. ...The duty of the Election Commission is to conduct freshelection and see that a democratically elected Government isinstalled at the earliest and any decision by the ElectionCommission, which is intended to defeat this very avowed objectof forming an elected Government can certainly be challengedbefore the Court if the decision taken by the Election Commissionis perverse, unreasonable or for extraneous reasons and if thedecision of the Election Commission is vitiated by any of thesegrounds the Court can give appropriate direction for the conductof the election.”

16. In the process of conducting fair elections, the ECI is alsosupposed to ensure that only genuine voters cast their votes. It has toensure that there are no duplicate, fake or incorrect voters in the votinglist prepared by it. It has also to ensure that genuine voters are not leftout. Voter list should, therefore, be genuine in all respects. It is for thisreason the ECI prepares draft voter list. While doing so, it attempts toremove duplicate, repeat or fake voters. It also endeavours to includeall genuine voters. This process is not only undertaken with the aid ofmechanical devices, namely, computer etc. but by sending its manpoweron door-to-door basis. For the same reason, namely, to ensure thatvoter lists are flawless, these lists are put on the website for the votersto see and those who are excluded can make grievance/representationabout the same. Likewise, for the same reason, the copies of the voterlists are supplied to the political parties as well and their objections areinvited. This is done to give chance to the political parties to go throughthese lists so that they are able to point out any errors, if any, in these 2 (2002) 8 SCC 237

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Alists. The ECI even holds all party meetings for this purpose where suchissues are discussed.

17. The ECI claims that it has taken all necessary steps in thisbehalf.

18. It is stated by the ECI on affidavit that draft electoral roll ofBJanuary 19, 2018 was rectified by ECI around May 25, 2018, whereasthe first complaint of the petitioner and the political party to which he isaffiliated regarding duplication/multiplication of voters is dated June 03,2018. Thereafter, ECI gave a detailed reply to the petitioner and hispolitical party on June 08, 2018, June 15, 2018 and July 16, 2018, pointingCout that the electoral rolls had been rectified. Furthermore, ECI alsosupplied a copy of the rectified draft electoral roll to the petitioner, andthe political party to which he is affiliated, on July 31, 2018. It was alsostated at the bar that ECI has also now published the Final Electoral Rollon September 27, 2018 and supplied a copy of the same to the petitioner(and his political party) wherein all such defects/discrepancies find noDplace as they have already been rectified earlier. The ECI has explainedthat revision and updation of the electoral roll is a continuous process,which the ECI is diligently pursuing continuously[3].

19. In the aforesaid context, we need to examine the demand ofthe petitioner for supply of electoral roll in text format. This demand isEbased upon Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual which has alreadybeen reproduced above. This clause places an obligation on the ECI toput the draft roll on its website in PDF format. The purpose is to bringit in public domain so that each voter is able to access the same and findout whether his/her name is correctly shown and in case of any error,Fthe said voter is in a position to get the same rectified. Likewise, in case 3 It may be mentioned that Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing for the ECItook strong exception to the production of documents from a private website on September20, 2018 and handing over the same to the Court during hearing wherein on the basis itwas sought to be demonstrated that there were mistakes in the electoral rolls inasmuch assame face was shown against as many as 36 voters. He submitted that it was done toGprejudice and mislead this Court as the aforesaid error pointed out by the petitioner hadalready been rectified around May 25, 2018 and this fact is informed to the petitioner aswell. According to him, thereafter there was no cause in filing the present petition and,in any case, no reason to submit the said document. Mr. Sibal, learned senior counselappearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the purpose of producingthe aforesaid document was to show that glaring mistakes of this kind have been committedearlier, which could be rectified only after the petitioner pointed out these mistakes. BeHthat as it may, we leave the matter at that.

a particular voter is missing from the list, that individual would be in aposition to take up the matter with the ECI for inclusion of his/her name.A copy thereof is also given to the political parties as well, becausethese political parties have equal interest in ensuring that the aforesaidmistakes are removed. They can additionally check as to whether thereare duplicate or fake voters also in the list and seek correction thereof.To this extent, there is no quarrel. However, the second part of theaforesaid clause mentions that draft roll would be put in a ‘text mode’.It also states that no photograph would appear against the electors’ details.The entire dispute hinges upon the meaning that is to be assigned to ‘textmode’. The argument of the petitioner is that ‘text mode’ is the onewhich provides searching techniques as well. For this purpose, followingdescription of ‘full text search’ from Wikipedia is produced:

“In text retrieval, full-text search refers to techniques forsearching a single computer-stored document or a collection in afull-text database. Full-text search is distinguished from searchesbased on metadata or on parts of the original texts representedin databases (such as titles, abstracts, selected sections, orbibliographical references).

In a full-text search, a search engine examines all of the wordsin every stored document as it tries to match search criteria (forexample, text specified by a user). Full-text-searching techniquesbecame common in online bibliographic databases in the 1990s.Many websites and application programs (such as wordprocessing software) provide full-text-search capabilities. Someweb search engines, such as AltaVista, employ full-text-searchtechniques, while others index only a portion of the web pagesexamined by their indexing systems.

20. Refutation of Mr. Vikas Singh is that ‘text mode’ in Clause11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual relates to the ‘content’ of the draftelectoral roll and not its ‘format’. It is argued that prescription in theaforesaid clause of the Manual requires putting the draft electoral roll intext mode which would mean that it should contain only the text of theelector’s details such as his name, address, age, etc. and not his/herphotograph. It is explained that any PDF document generally containstwo kinds of content: (i) Text and (ii) Pictures/Photographs/PictorialContent. Any elector’s details would include his name, age, address,etc. (i.e. ‘the text part’) as well as his photograph (i.e. ‘the photograph/

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Apicture/pictorial content part’). Thus, the use of the phrase ‘text mode’in Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual only means that the draftelectoral roll put up on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website shall onlycontain ‘text’ of the elector’s details and not his/her ‘photographs/pictures/pictorial content’. It is also explained that every PDF document, whetherit is a searchable or non-searchable/Image PDF and which contains anyBtext content in a ‘Text Mode’ is PDF in that sense. It is further submittedthat there is nothing called a ‘Text Mode’ format of a PDF document. Asimple ‘Google search’ in that regard would also clearly and conclusivelyestablish the same.

21. We find force in the submission of the ECI. Clause 11.2.2.2Cof the Election Manual uses the expression ‘text mode’. The draftelectoral roll in that mode, i.e. text mode, has been supplied to thepetitioner. The clause nowhere says that the draft electoral roll has tobe put up on the Chief Electoral Officer’s website in a ‘searchable PDF’.Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim, as a right, that the draft electoral Droll should be placed on the website in a ‘searchable mode’. It has onlyto be in ‘text mode’ and it is so provided.

22. The document from Wikipedia relied upon by the petitionerrelates to ‘full text search’ and not ‘text mode’. Obviously, when thesaid document explains how ‘full text search’ is to be undertaken, theEexplanation would be that it is a search engine which examines all of thewords in every stored documents and would provide full text searchingtechniques as well. However, the absence of the words ‘search’ inClause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual would make all the difference.

23. It is rightly explained by the ECI that PDF documents areFprimarily of two types/formats, namely:(i) “Image-only” or Scanned PDFs – When scanning hard copydocuments on MFPs and office scanners, or when converting a cameraimage, jpg, tiff or screenshot into a PDF, the content is “locked” in asnapshot-like image, without an underlying text layer. Such image-onlyPDF documents contain just the scanned/photographed images of pages.GImage-only PDF files are not searchable, and their text usually cannotbe selected, searches or copied.

(ii) Searchable PDFs – In Searchable PDFs, a text layer is added to theimage layer, usually placed underneath. Such PDF files are almostindistinguishable from the original documents and are fully searchable.HText in searchable PDF documents can be selected, searched and copied.

24. Once we find that Clause 11.2.2.2 does not entitle the petitionerto get the draft electoral roll in the text mode which is searchable as wellviz. in ‘full text search’ form, it is for the ECI to decide about the formatin which the draft electoral roll is to be published. ECI has given thereasons for not adhering to the request of the petitioner in providingdraft electoral roll in searchable PDF format. According to it, issues ofprivacy of voters are involved and the move of ECI is aimed at preventionof voter profiling and data mining. According to ECI, ensuring free andfair elections, to which it is committed, also necessitates that ECI is dutybound to protect the privacy and profiling of electors. Therefore, it isduty bound to take all precautionary measures. However, it is notnecessary to go into this aspect.

25. One we read and interpret Clause 11.2.2.2 of the ElectionManual in the aforesaid manner, the decision taken by the ECI which iscontained in its Instructions dated January 4, 2018 becomes relevant. Inthose Instructions, ECI has directed its field level functionaries to putonly the ‘Image PDF’ of electoral roll in the public domain. We are,therefore, of the opinion that the format in which the draft electoral rollis supplied to the petitioner fulfills the requirement contained in the ElectionManual. It may be added that if the petitioner so wants, he can alwaysconvert it into searchable mode which, of course, would require him toput his own efforts.

26. Other relief which is claimed by the petitioner is to seekdirections for conducting VVPAT verification at least 10% randomlyselected polling stations in each assembly constituency/assembly segmentto ensure free and fair elections. In this behalf, our attention was drawnby the respondents to Rule 56(d). It was also submitted by the respondentsthat this issue cannot be raised by the petitioner having regard to theorders passed on earlier occasions in few writ petitions which were filedon this aspect. The respondents referred to orders passed in PrakashJoshi v. Election Commission of India[4]. In that case also, whereidentical prayer was made, the petition was disposed of by orders datedOctober 30, 2017 in the following manner:

“Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General submits that asfar as Prayer (a) is concerned, the Election Commission of Indiahas already implemented the same. The situation is accorded to 4 Decided on October 30, 2017 in W.P. (C) No. 983 of 2017

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Aby Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the Election Commissionof India. As far as Prayer (b) is concerned, it is urged by Mr.K.K. Venugopal that guidelines have already been brought bythe Election Commission of India. The same is disputed by Mr.Kapil Sibal and Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counselappearing for the petitioner. We leave it to the discretion of theBElection Commission of India, as we are not inclined to enterinto the said arena. As far as Prayer (c) is concerned, it issubmitted by Mr. K.K. Venugopal that the Election Commissionof India has issued appropriate guidelines, and this Court maysay that no officer/official against whom disciplinary proceedingsChave been initiated shall be posted in any key positions.

Having heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, we direct that theElection Commission of India shall not post any officer/officialagainst whom the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated inany key position in any district.

D

As far as prayer (d) concerning installation of CCTVcameras inside the polling booth to watch the mobility of personsinside the polling booth and display of such videograph alongwiththe number of votes poll outside the polling booth on a displayboard is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that theEsame is not permissible and accordingly, the said prayer standsrejected.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”

27. Another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1012 of 2017[5] wasfiled before this Court in October 2017 itself, with almost identical prayer.FThis was dismissed inlimine on November 20, 2017. In the counteraffidavit, ECI has also referred to similar writ petitions filed in the HighCourt of Gujarat, which met the same fate.

28. In view of the orders dated October 30, 2017 passed inW.P.(C) No. 983 of 2017 and on the basis of statement given by the ECIGin the Court, we do not intend to entertain this relief.

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

Nidhi Jain Petitions dismissed.

H5 Manubhai Chavada v. Election Commission of India & Ors.