An avoidable din has broken out over the release of voter turnout data by the Election Commission (EC). For all general elections till 2019, the Election Commission (EC) followed a practice that was routine for poll watchers. By the end of each phase of polling, around 7 pm, the EC would address a press conference where they would reveal poll data for each State. They would give the ‘provisional’ percentages on voter turnout, which would be finalised in two or three days, allowing for information to trickle in from remote areas.
This time, the EC issued a press release at around 9 pm, after each of the first two phases of the ongoing general elections. The EC press release at the end of the first phase of polling on April 19 said that at 7 pm, voter turnout was approximately 60 per cent. It also gave State-wise approximate voter turnout percentage. After the second phase of polling on April 26, the EC issued a press release at 8.49 pm and said that approximate voter turnout was 60.96 per cent at 7 pm. It did not give a State-wise account of voter turnout. The final figures on voter turnout were not released till 10 days after the first phase of polling on April 19 and three days after the second phase. On April 30, this newspaperreported that the EC had not released the final voter turnout data. Following this, the EC released the final figure. It said the voter turnout was 66.14 and 66.71 per cent for the two phases, respectively, nearly six percentage points higher than 60 per cent and 60.96 per cent reported on the day of polling for the first and the second phase.
These information gaps have led to avoidable speculation and conspiracy theories which can undermine voter confidence in the poll process. The EC is one of India’s stellar constitutional authorities, having conducted free and fair elections year after year, in a manner matched by few democracies in the world. Its critics need to be mindful of this fact. The fact that final polling data was not shared within a reasonable time with the public should not be used to judge the fairness of the election process, or for that matter, the EC’s role itself. That said, the EC should be mindful that it is in sharp focus now and its actions are being observed very closely. It should stick to well-established precedents.
The issue of poll data gaps can be easily addressed. The EC should revert to its earlier practice of addressing a press conference, if not on the poll day, at least a day after to dispel any such doubts. It can provide within a reasonable time, absolute data on the size of the electorate and the number of votes polled. It would help if the EC were to share the process of collating such data in the public domain — just as it has explained to the Supreme Court the checks built into the electronic voting system. All this is surely not a tall ask for an organisation that has achieved so much.