What Is Form 17C? Controversy Grips EC over 'Indiscriminate Disclosure' of Voter Turnout

Form 17C records all the votes polled in a polling station. Under Rule 49S(2) of Election Rules, 1961, a presiding officer is mandated to furnish a copy of Form 17C to the polling agents of all the contesting candidates at the close of polling. On Friday, the apex court refused to direct the EC to disclose booth-wise voter turnout data under Form 17C, saying that it does not want to interrupt the polling process in the midst of the ongoing election.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has found itself embroiled in a debate over the transparency of voter turnout data during the ongoing Lok Sabha elections. On May 22, the ECI informed the Supreme Court that it cannot disclose the voter turnout data based on Form 17C. The ECI said that releasing Form 17C data will cause confusion among voters as it will also include postal ballot counts. The ECI also informed the Supreme court that the "indiscriminate disclosure" of polling station-wise voter turnout data and its posting on the website could disrupt the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, which is already in motion.

The Supreme Court heard on 24th May 20224 an application seeking the uploading of Form 17C data on the ECI website and the publication of booth wise voter turnout data.

As per the 1961 Election Rules, the ECI has to maintain two forms that have data on the number of electors and the votes polled — Forms 17A and 17C. Form 17A is used to record the details of every voter who comes into a polling booth and casts his or her vote, the 17C is an account of all the votes recorded. Under Rule 49S(2), a presiding officer is mandated to furnish a copy of the entries made in Form 17C to the polling agents of the candidates at the close of polling.

What is Form 17C? Form 17C records the votes polled in a polling station. According to the EC handbook, it is intended to be provided only to polling agents and not to any other entity. The form includes the identification numbers of the EVMs, the total number of electors, voters at that booth, the number of voters who decided to not cast their votes after signing the register, the number of voters who were not allowed to vote; and a total number of votes recorded per EVM. If the number of votes recorded is equal to number of voters minus those who did not vote, Data about ballot papers (received, issued, and not used/returned), Data about paper seals (numbers issued/used/returned). This form can be crucial in resolving legal disputes related to the poll result. Form 17C can be used in case of a legal dispute related to the poll result.

Form 17 C Part I: A copy of Form 17 C Part I is given to the polling agents (of political parties) by the presiding officer, detailing the number of eligible voters assigned to the booth, number of electors in the register of voters, the number of voters who decided not to exercise their franchise, and the number of voters not allowed to vote. It requires the presiding officer to specify the number of votes recorded as per the EVMs. Polling agents are mandated to give the officer a receipt under Section 49S of the Conduct of Election Rules (CoER), 1961.

Form 17 C Part II: Part II of Form 17C is completed by the supervisor of the counting station and necessitates the signature of each candidate or their representative. This section undergoes scrutiny by the Returning Officer. It contains specific data about the following, Name of the candidate and votes received .If total votes counted from that booth is the same as total votes polled (per Part 1).

Why Is Form 17C Important?Because voter turnout data in this form can be used to legally challenge an election result. In an election that has already seen serious questions about the reliability of the EVMs, Form 17C data is being seen as an important counterweight to potential poll fraud. As far as EVMs go, in April the Supreme Court gave EVMs a thumbs-up, and rejected petitions seeking 100 per cent verification of votes cast on EVMs using the VVPAT, or Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail.

Dispute surrounding voter turnout data Phase 1 data was delayed by 10 days and data for the next three phases by four days each. Political leaders like the TMC leader Mahua Moitra and the Congress' Pawan Khera have demanded the EC release this data as required – within 48 hours of close of polling, claiming widespread concern among voters over possible fraud to ensure victory for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Mahua Moitra, contesting Bengal's Krishnanagar seat, has been particularly active, posting multiple times on X to urge the Election Commission to publish the data. To underline her point, on May 14 she released voter data from her constituency. "Attention EC – here is data for my constituency with number of voters, compiled within 24 hrs... Why are you not able to give this for four phases?"

During a previous hearing on May 17, the Supreme Court asked the electoral body about its reluctance to publish voter turnout data. The supreme court was hearing a petition filed by Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) advocating for the immediate disclosure of absolute numbers of voters polled constituency-wise. ADR also urged ECI to upload Form 17 C, containing voters polled data, on its official website. The petition highlighted concerns regarding a sharp increase observed between the initial and final voting percentages. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud gave a week’s time for the poll panel to file its response and posted the matter for hearing on May 24, the eve of the sixth phase of polling.

The plea, argued by advocate Prashant Bhushan, said that soon after voting for the two phases on April 19 and 26 ended, ECI issued a press release giving tentative voter turnout across 21 states and Union territories to be 60% in first phase and 60.96% for second phase as of 7 PM. The revised data published on April 30 recorded an increase of nearly 6% with the total voting figures for the two phases being 66.14% and 66.71%.

To be sure voting percentages usually rise in the days after provisional turnout is released as it takes time for polling team to return from far-flung polling booths situated in geographically challenging terrains, depending on weather conditions among other things. The delay in updating data can also occur due to re-polling in any constituency. However, the lag this time has been longer, and that was fixed in the third phase.

Notably, the hearing coincides with the opposition led by the congress party, raising similar doubts about significant disparities between real time voters turnout data and the final figures released by Election Commission Congress questions ECI on disclosing polling data through Form 17C.

Addressing a press conference at the party headquarters, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi sharply criticised the EC’s argument that data contained in Form 17C can be morphed or distorted if it is uploaded on its website. He said it is unfortunate and condemnable that the poll body is not fulfilling its constitutional duty and its inclination is “one-sided”.

Singhvi also accused the EC of trying to be “the election department” of the Bharatiya Janata Party by not acting on the complaints of model code violations by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. Instead, he said, the EC is creating “false equivalences” by giving generalised directions to political parties.

Congress president Mallikarjuna Kharge’s letter to Chiefs of other INDIA parties that he also posted on social media, cast doubts on EC’s functioning and wondered whether the “unusual spike” in the final voter turnout figures in comparison to the one released at the end of the day, was an attempt to “doctor” the final results.

Supreme Court's refusal: The apex court refused to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose booth-wise voter turnout data under Form 17C. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking the uploading of Form 17C data and booth-wise voter turnout data on the ECI website. A vacation Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the interim prayer sought in the present petition was similar to the relief raised in the main petition pending before the top Court since 2019. The Bench however clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case apart from this prime facie view.

Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said that a "hands-off approach" has to be taken by the Court regarding the election process and that there cannot be any interruptions in the process. "In between elections, hands-off approach has to be taken. Let the application be heard along with the main writ petition. We cannot interrupt the process. Let us have some trust in the authority," Justice Datta orally said.

Read More

1.LOK SABHA ELECTION - 2024