1. Production of data by the Election Commission of India pursuant to interim directions. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1312
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, C.J.I., SANJIV KHANNA, B.R. GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Association for Democratic Reforms and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 2017
Decided On : 02-11-2023
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Prashant Bhushan, Neha Rathi, Pranav Sachdeva, Alice Raj, Shivani Kapoor, Kamal Kishore, Kajal Giri, Kapil Sibal, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Varun Thakur, Gautam Bhatia, Rupali Samuel, Aprajits Jamuel, Rishabh Parikh, Shsntanu Sharma, Deeksha Gaur, Y.K. Prasad, Shadan Farasat, Hrishika Jain, Aman Naqvi, Natasha Maheshwari, Rizwan, Sachi Chopra, Gautam Bhatia, Nizam Pasha, Javedur Rahman, Mudassir, Arif Ali, Aayushi Mishra, Pradanns S.
For the Respondents: R. Venkataramani, Tushar Mehta, R. Balasubramanian, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Seema Bengani, Seema Bengani, Shyam Gopal, Chinmayee Chandra, Kanu Agrawal, Rajat Nair, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Shraddha Deshmukh, Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Kartikay Aggarwal.
For the UOI : R. Venkataramani, Tushar Mehta, R. Balasubramanian, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Chinmayee Chandra, Seema Bengani, Shraddha Deshmukh, Ankur Talwar, Shyam Gopal, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Arvind Kumar Sharma.
For the Election Commission : Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Pallavi Barua, Aparna Singh.
For the Intervenors : Vijay Hansaria, Sneha Kalita, Kavya Jhawar, K.S. Bhati, Jessy Kurian, S.R. Leona, Pawanshree Agarwala, Sanjay R. Hegde, Suren Uppal, Aviral Kashyap, Shahrukh Ali, Sanjeev Menon, Stuti Srivastava, Vimal Sinha, Rajesh Kumar, P.B. Suresh, Prasanna S., Disha Wadekar, Deeksha Dwivedi, Swati Arya, Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Varun K. Chopra, Mehul Sharma, Abhishek Kandwal, Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Aparna Menon, Mohammed Sadique T.A.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Prashant Bhushan, Neha Rathi, Pranav Sachdeva, Alice Raj, Shivani Kapoor, Kamal Kishore, Kajal Giri, Kapil Sibal, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Varun Thakur, Gautam Bhatia, Rupali Samuel, Aprajits Jamuel, Rishabh Parikh, Shsntanu Sharma, Deeksha Gaur, Y.K. Prasad, Shadan Farasat, Hrishika Jain, Aman Naqvi, Natasha Maheshwari, Rizwan, Sachi Chopra, Gautam Bhatia, Nizam Pasha, Javedur Rahman, Mudassir, Arif Ali, Aayushi Mishra, Pradanns S.
For the Respondents: R. Venkataramani, Tushar Mehta, R. Balasubramanian, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Seema Bengani, Seema Bengani, Shyam Gopal, Chinmayee Chandra, Kanu Agrawal, Rajat Nair, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Shraddha Deshmukh, Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Kartikay Aggarwal.
For the UOI : R. Venkataramani, Tushar Mehta, R. Balasubramanian, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Chinmayee Chandra, Seema Bengani, Shraddha Deshmukh, Ankur Talwar, Shyam Gopal, Raman Yadav, Chitvan Singhal, Arvind Kumar Sharma.
For the Election Commission : Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Pallavi Barua, Aparna Singh.
For the Intervenors : Vijay Hansaria, Sneha Kalita, Kavya Jhawar, K.S. Bhati, Jessy Kurian, S.R. Leona, Pawanshree Agarwala, Sanjay R. Hegde, Suren Uppal, Aviral Kashyap, Shahrukh Ali, Sanjeev Menon, Stuti Srivastava, Vimal Sinha, Rajesh Kumar, P.B. Suresh, Prasanna S., Disha Wadekar, Deeksha Dwivedi, Swati Arya, Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Varun K. Chopra, Mehul Sharma, Abhishek Kandwal, Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj, Aparna Menon, Mohammed Sadique T.A.
The Court emphasized the Election Commission's obligation to comply with judicial directives regarding electoral data transparency and accountability.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 and 227 - Writ Petition - Petition regarding election data - Interim direction issued on 12 April 2019 for the Election Commission of India to produce data - Court directed the Election Commission to provide up-to-date data until 30 September 2023 - Commission’s responsibility to clarify any ambiguity in compliance with Court directives. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Judicial Review - The scope of judicial review extends to ensuring compliance with the Court's interim orders and directives as well as adequate accountability from statutory authorities like the Election Commission of India. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought clarity and timely compliance from the Election Commission regarding the production of electoral data, emphasizing the necessity for transparency and accountability in electoral processes.
Findings of Court:
The Court mandated that the Election Commission produce current data in adherence to its previous directives, reinforcing the necessity of clear communication and compliance with judicial orders by public institutions.
Issues: The main issues were the compliance with the interim directive regarding electoral data and the responsibilities of the Election Commission in addressing ambiguities in such directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court asserted that the Election Commission must comply with the interim orders and clarify any ambiguities rather than assume restrictions absent explicit directives from the Court.
Result: Direction issued for compliance with the production of data by the Election Commission.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Interim directions are not restricted to the date of pronouncement; parties must seek clarification from the court if ambiguity exists. (Para 5 )
3. Court directions are continuing obligations unless specifically restricted to a certain date. (Para 5 )
4. Direction to produce up-to-date data in a sealed packet to the Registrar (Judicial) by a specified date. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Whether an interim direction issued by a court is limited to the date of its pronouncement?
No, an interim direction is not restricted to the date on which it is pronounced. In the event of any ambiguity regarding the scope of the order, the party concerned is expected to seek clarification from the court. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. We have heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, Mr. Shadan Farasat and Mr. Nizam Pasha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel and Mr. P. B. Suresh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the intervenors, supported the petitioners.
2. On behalf of the Union of India, we have heard Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General with Mr. Kanu Agrawal, learned counsel. Submissions have been advanced on behalf of the Election Commission of India by Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel.
3. Arguments concluded.
4. Judgment reserved.
5. On 12 April 2019, an interim direction was issued by this Court to the Election Commission of India. The Election Commission of India has produced in a sealed packet data in terms of the interim order as of April 2019. The order of this Court was not restricted to the date on which it was pronounced. If there was any ambiguity, it was necessary for the Election Commission to seek a clarification from this Court. In any event, we now direct that the Election Commission shall produce up-to-date data until 30 September 2023 in terms of the interim directions which were issued on 12 April 2019.
6. This exercise shall be carried out on or before 19 November 2023.
7. Data in a sealed packet shall be handed over to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
