The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging a circular issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) banning coters from carrying mobile phones inside polling booths during the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly elections.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Amit Borkar rejected the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Ujala Shyambihari Yadav, a member of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS).
Yadav had sought permission for voters to bring mobile phones into polling booths and to use the DigiLocker app, approved by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), for presenting their identification documents.
The Court ruled that a voter does not have a "vested right" to establish their identity via the DigiLocker app in the election process.
It clarified that while the Information Technology Act recognizes "the fact that digitally or electronically signed documents shared from a subscriber of DigiLocker shall be treated at par with physical documents," this does not confer a right to use DigiLocker for voter identification during elections.
Yadav's petition challenged the ECI's June 14, 2023, notification, which laid down guidelines for managing activities outside polling stations during general and by-elections.
The notification included a restriction that no person other than election officials, poll observers and police officers, could carry or use mobile phones or wireless devices within a 100-meter perimeter of a polling station or inside the polling booth.
Yadav argued that this restriction violated his rights under Rule 9A of the Information Technology (Preservation and Retention of Information by Intermediaries Providing Digital Locker Facilities) Rules, 2016, which recognizes electronically signed certificates or documents from DigiLocker as equivalent to physical documents.
He also cited a 2018 circular issued by MeitY in support of his argument. Additionally, he contended that Section 130 of the Representation of People Act of 1950 already prohibits canvassing near polling stations, making a blanket ban on mobile phones unnecessary.
Conversely, Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing the ECI, argued that the restrictions were necessary to ensure elections are held in a "free and fair" as well as a "fearless" manner.
He warned that allowing mobile phones inside polling booths could lead to misuse of technology. Kumbhakoni further emphasized that the ECI, under Article 324 of the Constitution, has "plenary powers" to direct and control the conduct of elections, and this power does not violate any voters' rights.
The Court agreed with the ECI.
"The circular recognises the ability of citizens. Such a provision does not vest any right in any voter to contravene any provisions of superintendence of ECI," the Court stated.
It further affirmed that the powers of the ECI under the Constitution are of a "plenary nature," meaning they are comprehensive and overriding. The bench concluded that no other instrument or law could override the measures taken by the ECI under Article 324 with respect to elections.