FORM 17 C

• The NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has highlighted a significant difference between the initial voter turnout figures released by the Election Commission of India (ECI) immediately after polling and the final percentages published later. These discrepancies have raised serious questions from the Opposition and civil society about the authenticity of the publicly available polling data and the potential for manipulation during the counting stage.
• On May 20, advocate Mehmood Pracha, who ran as an independent candidate from the Rampur Lok Sabha constituency, filed an intervention application in the case. Pracha alleged that the returning officer (RO) in his constituency failed to provide copies of the Form 17C record of votes polled, as required by the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (1961 Rules).
• In a similar vein, a group of civil society members has written to the ECI, urging it to “immediately disclose” the authenticated voter turnout records for every polling station, as documented in Part I of Form 17C (account of votes recorded), on its website.

According to the 1961 Rules, the Election Commission of India (ECI) must maintain two forms that document the number of electors and the votes polled: Forms 17A and 17C. Form 17A records the details of every voter who casts their vote at a polling booth, while Form 17C provides an account of all the votes recorded. Under Rule 49S(2), the presiding officer is required to give a copy of the entries made in Form 17C to the polling agents of the candidates at the close of polling.

Form 17C is divided into two parts:

• Part I contains essential information, including the identification numbers of the EVMs used at the polling station, the total number of electors assigned to the polling station, the total number of voters recorded in the register for voters (Form 17A), the number of voters who decided not to vote after signing the register, the number of voters who were not allowed to vote, and the total number of test votes and votes recorded per EVM.
• Part II includes the results of the counting conducted on the designated day.

Candidates use the data in Form 17C to verify the results on the counting day by matching it with the EVM count. If any discrepancies are found, an election petition can be filed in the concerned High Court.

4. ECI Responses

• In response to the allegations, the Election Commission of India (ECI) asserted that it is not legally obligated to publish the absolute number of votes polled at every polling station online.
• The ECI emphasised that "copies of Form 17C are shared with polling agents present immediately, as the strongest measure of transparency.
• So, candidates are aware and in possession of exact voter turnout data in absolute numbers even before it is known to the ECI," the letter stated.
• The ECI explained that variations in the estimated data on polling day occur because voters continue to vote after 6:00 pm due to long queues at polling stations.
• In an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court, the ECI argued that disclosing Form 17C data could cause "confusion in the minds of voters" as it includes postal ballot counts.
• This, according to the ECI, could be "used by persons with motivated interests to cast aspersion on the whole electoral process."
• The ECI also questioned the motives of the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), suggesting that ADR approached the Supreme Court with an agenda "to perpetually keep creating doubt in the mind of voters based on conspiracy theory."
• The ECI referenced ADR's unsuccessful challenge in the EVM-VVPAT cross-verification case as part of its response.

5. Way Forward

The Election Commission of India should focus on upholding the principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness in the electoral process, thereby strengthening democracy in India.