The Supreme Court on Thursday, 17 April, granted three more weeks to the Election Commission to respond to the pleas of and others against the recent amendments to the 1961 election rules.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had issued a notice to the Centre and the poll panel on 15 January on Ramesh's plea and sought a response.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the poll panel, sought three more weeks to file the reply.

The bench allowed Singh's prayer and set the 21 July week for hearing.

Aside from Ramesh, two similar PILs filed by Shyam Lal Pal and activist Anjali Bhardwaj are pending.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi represented Ramesh.

The petitioners have said the amendments to the 1961 Conduct of Election Rules were made "very cleverly" and barred any access to CCTV footage claiming it would reveal the identity of the voter.

Singhvi previously said voting choices were never revealed and the CCTV footage couldn't reveal votes and urged the bench to ask the poll panel and the Centre to file their responses before the next date of hearing.

Highlights of Press Briefing

16 April, 2025

Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, MP and Chairman, Law, Human Rights & RTI department, AICC and Shri Jairam Ramesh, MP and General Secretary (Communications), AICC addressed the media at AICC Office, today.

— INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh)

Ramesh's plea was filed in December and expressed "hope" that the apex court would help "restore the fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process.

The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage besides video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse.

"The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it," Ramesh said.

Based on EC's recommendation, the union law ministry in December amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the 1961 rules, to restrict the type of "papers" or documents open to public inspection.

Bhardwaj, in her separate plea filed through lawyer Prashant Bhushan, challenged the recent amendment to election rules which allegedly restrict public access to election-related records.

The PIL challenges the validity of the Conduct of Elections (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 and argues the amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution by restricting citizens' access to crucial election-related documents.

Prior to the amendment, it was stated, Rule 93(2)(a) provided "all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection".

"The impugned amendment is a blatant violation of Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India as it brings opaqueness and restricts people's fundamental right to access vital documents and papers related to elections," the plea said.

The amendment, said the plea, sought to narrow and restrict public access to election related records, Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 prior to the 2024 amendment.

The new amendment is stated to have modified the provision to "all other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection".

The petitioner argued the change introduced new and arbitrary restrictions on public access, limiting transparency in the electoral process.

The plea said the amendment infringed upon the fundamental right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) and the right to a free and fair election under Article 21.

It claimed the amendment curtailed public scrutiny of election records, leading to reduced transparency and potentially facilitating corrupt practices.

The amendment, the plea said, imposed arbitrary constraints by restricting access to only those records explicitly mentioned in the rules, excluding others without justification.

By limiting access to election documents, the amendment is seen as contrary to the spirit of the , which promotes governmental accountability and transparency, it added.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court on disclosure of all details related to electoral bonds, Chief Justice Chandrachud said that SBI should not be selective in disclosing the details. We want that all the information related to electoral bonds, which is with SBI, should be made public. During the hearing, the Supreme Court said that we had asked SBI to disclose all the details and this also included the electoral bond numbers. SBI should give complete information related to electoral bonds. The Supreme Court said in a strict tone that whatever information is available should be disclosed. SBI should follow our order.

'We will give every information, will not keep any hidden'
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for SBI, told the Supreme Court that we will give all the information including the number of the electoral bond. The Bank will not keep any information in its possession hidden. During the hearing, the Supreme Court said that SBI will also file an affidavit stating that it has not hidden any information. The court said that SBI should provide all the information by 5 pm on March 21.

Request to consider some instructions on the matter- Tushar Mehta
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Supreme Court that the ultimate objective was to curb black money and the apex court should know how this judgment is being played outside the court. During this, Tushar Mehta has asked the Supreme Court to consider issuing some instructions in this regard. A series of social media posts have started in this matter.

We work according to the Constitution- Chandrachud
Supreme Court Chief Justice Chandrachud said that we work according to the rule of law and the Constitution. We are also discussed as judges. We are only implementing our instructions of the judgement.

Supreme Court had given instructions
In fact, State Bank of India has issued electoral bonds worth Rs 16,518 crore in 30 installments since the launch of the scheme in 2018. Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed SBI to hand over the information about electoral bonds purchased from April 12, 2019 to the Election Commission. SBI is the authorized financial institution to issue electoral bonds.

SBI had handed over the data
SBI on Tuesday evening submitted to the Election Commission the details of the entities that had purchased electoral bonds and the political parties that had encashed them. According to the apex court order, the Election Commission had to publish the information shared by the bank on its official website by 5 pm on March 15.

000

Delhi : The Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh on the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation. This fine has been imposed for cutting trees in excess of the prescribed limit in Aarey forest. The court has said in its order that within two weeks the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited will have to pay the fine amount. A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said in its order that the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited was wrong in approaching the Tree Authority for cutting trees in excess of the prescribed limit.

Instructions given to the director of IIT Bombay
The court said that the MMRCL would have to deposit the fine amount with the conservator of forest within two weeks so that the conservator could ensure that the afforestation work is done properly. The court has asked the director of IIT Bombay to form a team to monitor it and submit the report within three weeks. Let us tell you that last year the Supreme Court had given permission to cut 84 trees in Aarey forest. This approval was given for the construction of a car shed for the Metro.

Supreme Court issues notice on Brinda Karat's petition
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Delhi Police on a petition by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat. Brinda Karat had demanded in the petition that an FIR be registered against Anurag Thakur, Pravesh Verma for his speech in the case of Delhi riots. In her petition, Brinda Karat has accused BJP leaders of allegedly spreading hatred.

000