Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has once again raised demands for machine-readable digital copies of the electoral rolls for the 2024 Lok Sabha and upcoming Vidhan Sabha elections. However, constitutional experts and Election Commission sources say this demand has already been legally settled — and rejected — by the Supreme Court.
Legal experts point to a landmark 2018 ruling in which the Supreme Court dismissed a similar plea filed by senior Congress leader Kamal Nath, then Madhya Pradesh Congress chief. He had requested soft copies of the draft electoral rolls in text format. A bench comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan held that the format used by the Election Commission complied with legal requirements under the Election Manual.
The court noted that Clause 11.2.2.2 of the Election Manual refers to “text mode” — which was fulfilled by the format provided. “There is no requirement to upload the draft electoral roll in a searchable PDF format,” the court had stated, adding that if parties wanted a searchable format, they were free to convert the files themselves.
The Supreme Court sided with the Election Commission’s rationale, particularly its concern for protecting voter privacy. The poll panel had argued that releasing electoral rolls in machine-readable, scannable formats could facilitate voter profiling and data mining — a risk it is obligated to prevent.
Further, the Election Commission clarified that it already supplies recognised political parties with two copies of the electoral rolls — a hard copy in PDF (with voter images) and a soft copy without images — free of cost at both draft and final publication stages. Even unrecognised parties, NGOs, or citizens can obtain soft copies (without images) for a nominal fee of Rs 100 per CD.
Despite this, Rahul Gandhi has continued to press the issue, even alleging electoral manipulation in Maharashtra during the 2023 Assembly elections. In response, the Election Commission extended an open invitation for a discussion to address any doubts — an offer that Gandhi has yet to accept.
A senior Election Commission official remarked, “This demand has persisted for over eight years. The Congress party has consistently pushed for machine-readable electoral rolls, even after the Supreme Court has conclusively ruled on the matter.”
He further added, “The party’s current stance seems to overlook the legal precedent it itself established. Their demand is not compatible with the constitutional and legal framework governing the Election Commission’s functioning.”
The Supreme Court’s judgment had also praised the integrity of the Election Commission, noting that “people of the country, by and large, trust this institution for its impartial manner of discharging its functions.”
With the legal position clearly established and the Election Commission’s processes validated by the judiciary, experts believe that continuing to press this issue may be more political theatre than policy demand.
