The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission (EC) to explain the rationale behind increasing the number of voters for each polling station from 1,200 to 1,500, expressing concern that long queues may deny some people the chance to vote.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a PIL challenging the EC’s decision on the ground that it would cause huge inconvenience, serpentine queues and waste of time.

“We are concerned that no voter is troubled or turned down,” the bench observed while asking the EC to file an affidavit within three weeks to justify the move implemented through a notification issued in 2019.

Petitioner Indu Prakash Singh, a social activist, had assailed the notification on the ground that the increase in the number of voters had been carried out arbitrarily.

Singh had submitted that the sudden increase in the number of voters from 1,200
to 1,500 would cause severe hardships and inconvenience to voters, particularly daily wage earners, rickshaw pullers, domestic workers and others who could not afford
to wait endlessly at polling stations.

Either the voters have to sacrifice their day’s livelihood or decide against voting, leading to their disenfranchisement and violation of their statutory and constitutional right, the petitioner added.

Though the apex court did not issue any formal notice, it asked the EC to explain how an electronic voting machine (EVM), which can record 1,200 votes, could cater to a polling booth having over 1,500 voters.

It also asked the poll panel to explain how a single EVM, which can register 45 votes
per hour, could accommodate all 1,500 votes if there was 100 per cent voting between 6am and 5pm.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the EC, urged the bench not to issue any notice or entertain the PIL. Singh argued that the apex court had earlier
dismissed several PILs that had raised questions about EVMs.

According to Singh, political parties are consulted before the conduct of
every election and the increase in the number of voters had not affected the election process.

However, CJI Khanna said: “File an affidavit explaining your stance. We are concerned that no voter should be troubled.”

The CJI directed the EC to explain its position through a short affidavit, which should be filed within three weeks. A copy of the affidavit should be furnished to the counsel
of the petitioner, the bench said while posting thenmatter for further hearing on January 27.