The Delhi High Court recently took note of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) directive to destroy CCTV and webcasting footage of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections after forty-five days from the declaration of results, unless an election petition has been filed. The court expressed concern that such early disposal of crucial footage could hinder transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
The directive, based on Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, limits the period for retaining video footage and other electronic data captured during the election process. The Election Commission has justified this rule, stating that the restricted access and retention of such material are necessary to protect voter privacy and prevent potential misuse or manipulation of the data. According to the ECI, the recordings are meant for internal monitoring and not for public viewing or external dissemination.
However, this move has sparked widespread criticism from political leaders and civil society groups, who argue that the destruction of such records within forty-five days undermines the transparency of elections. They contend that the video and webcasting footage serves as vital evidence in cases of electoral malpractice, booth capturing, or procedural irregularities. The short retention period, they argue, could lead to the loss of crucial proof before any investigation or legal challenge can be effectively initiated.
The ECI’s letter to state Chief Electoral Officers clarifies that if no election petition is filed within forty-five days—the legally prescribed period under the Representation of the People Act, 1951—the footage may be destroyed. This, the ECI claims, aligns with statutory timelines and administrative efficiency. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court’s attention to this matter underscores the tension between administrative convenience and the need to preserve evidence for judicial scrutiny.
The court observed that while privacy concerns are valid, the integrity of the electoral process must not be compromised. The footage could serve as important material evidence in resolving disputes or ensuring fair electoral practices. The destruction of such data without judicial oversight could affect the credibility of election management.
The case has reignited the debate over the balance between privacy and transparency in election monitoring. The High Court’s observations have drawn attention to the need for a more balanced policy—one that safeguards voter confidentiality while ensuring that potential evidence of malpractice is not lost prematurely. The issue remains under scrutiny, and the outcome could shape future electoral data management policies across the country.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.