$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9657/2024 & CM APPL. 39683/2024 MEHMOOD PRACHA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person along with M.r Sanawar, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Kshtij Singh, Mr. Sikander, Mr. Kumail Abbas, Advocates (M:9319630503)

versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Vinayak Thakur, Advocates (M:9013008939)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 07.11.2025 CM APPL. 39683/2024 (For Stay)

1. Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that video footage and CCTV footage pertaining to the Lok Sabha Elections, 2024, which is in the custody of all the respective District Election Officers (“DEOs”), i.e., the seven DEOs in Delhi, shall not be destroyed during the pendency of the present writ petition.

2. Petitioner, thus, vehemently pleads before this Court that the said video and CCTV footage ought to be preserved.

3. The petitioner appearing in person draws the attention of this Court to Paragraph 19.10.4 of the “Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023”, issued by the Election Commission of India (“ECI”), to submit that the respondent- Election Commission of India is enjoined upon to retain, in safe custody of the DEO, all the CCTV/video recordings. The aforesaid Paragraph 19.10.4 is reproduced as under:

“19.10.4 In case no election petition or any other petition/complaint etc. is pending, the CCTV/ Video recording should be destroyed after expiry of the prescribed period of 45 days or 8 months, as the case may be, following the usual procedure prescribed for the purpose. If there is any election petition filed in respect of the election or any other petition etc. in any court in respect of which the recording would be relevant, then the recorded version shall be retained in safe custody of DEO till the disposal of such matter.”

4. Petitioner further relies upon the order dated 20^th August, 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 473/2024, titled as Mehmood Pracha Versus Election Commission of India to submit that the petitioner has been granted liberty by the Supreme Court to bring to the notice of this Court any specific information by way of the present writ petition, which is pending before this Court.

5. The order dated 20th August, 2024 passed by the Supreme Court as

aforesaid, is reproduced as under:

“We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which makes omnibus, vague

and sweeping assertions. The prayers made are equally sweeping.

It is to be noted that the petitioner, Mehmood Pracha, has already approached the High Court of Delhi by way of a writ petition with regard to a specific constituency.

It is for the candidates, others or in case the petitioner, Mehmood Prach, has any specific information, to approach the concerned Court including the jurisdictional High Court as per law.

Recording the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

6. Responding to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-ECI draws the attention of this Court to the Instructions dated 30^th May, 2025 issued by the ECI in modification of its earlier instructions dated 06^th September, 2024, to submit that preservation of the webcasting data and photography is only for a limited period. Paragraph 2 of the said modified Instructions dated 30^th May, 2025 issued by the ECI, as relied upon by the respondent, is reproduced as under:

“2. However, recent misuse of this content by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives on social media by selective and out of context use of such content, which will not lead to any legal outcome, has prompted a review. The Commission therefore, in modification of its earlier instructions dated 06.09.2024 relating to supply and disposal of electronic recordings of the above-

mentioned events, issues the following instruction:

“Notwithsta