Election Commission of India Says No Information on Returning Officers

Election Commission of India’s Information Blackout

On May 14th, 2024, after the fourth phase of polling, an RTI application was filed by Venkatesh Nayak, the Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). The information sought was fairly simple. Nayak asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose a complete list of all Returning Officers currently serving across every State and Union Territory in India. The information requested was elementary: the names, designations, telephone numbers, and email addresses of these officials.

This seemingly basic information, which should ideally be accessible on the ECI’s website, was conspicuously missing, prompting Nayak to submit his RTI request. In his application, Nayak pointed out a glaring issue: “Despite your Commission creating a webpage intended to list the State and Union Territory-wise names and contact details of Chief Electoral Officers, many of these websites fail to provide this information. With over 800 administrative districts across the country, which overlap with the 543 Lok Sabha constituencies, it is nearly impossible for an average citizen to differentiate between District Election Officers (DEOs) and Returning Officers (ROs). Given that the list of ROs is not available on your official site, I am left with no choice but to formally request this information through an RTI petition.”

What unfolds next is deeply troubling. For 30 days, the Election Commission of India fails to respond, withholding basic information that should have been publicly accessible. After this prolonged silence, Nayak is compelled to file a First RTI Appeal. This appeal is a statutory recourse available when a Public Information Officer does not respond within the prescribed time limit.

In his First Appeal, submitted on July 4, 2024, Nayak urges the Appellate Authority to compel the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the ECI to release the list of all Returning Officers currently serving in every State and Union Territory of India, at no cost. Nayak inv

Election Commission of India’s Information Blackout

On May 14th, 2024, after the fourth phase of polling, an RTI application was filed by Venkatesh Nayak, the Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). The information sought was fairly simple. Nayak asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose a complete list of all Returning Officers currently serving across every State and Union Territory in India. The information requested was elementary: the names, designations, telephone numbers, and email addresses of these officials.

This seemingly basic information, which should ideally be accessible on the ECI’s website, was conspicuously missing, prompting Nayak to submit his RTI request. In his application, Nayak pointed out a glaring issue: “Despite your Commission creating a webpage intended to list the State and Union Territory-wise names and contact details of Chief Electoral Officers, many of these websites fail to provide this information. With over 800 administrative districts across the country, which overlap with the 543 Lok Sabha constituencies, it is nearly impossible for an average citizen to differentiate between District Election Officers (DEOs) and Returning Officers (ROs). Given that the list of ROs is not available on your official site, I am left with no choice but to formally request this information through an RTI petition.”

What unfolds next is deeply troubling. For 30 days, the Election Commission of India fails to respond, withholding basic information that should have been publicly accessible. After this prolonged silence, Nayak is compelled to file a First RTI Appeal. This appeal is a statutory recourse available when a Public Information Officer does not respond within the prescribed time limit.

In his First Appeal, submitted on July 4, 2024, Nayak urges the Appellate Authority to compel the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the ECI to release the list of all Returning Officers currently serving in every State and Union Territory of India, at no cost. Nayak invokes Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, which stipulates that if a public authority fails to provide the requested information within the specified time frame, it must be provided free of charge.

According to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the CPIO has only two options upon receiving an information request: either provide the information upon payment of any applicable fees or reject the request based on the grounds outlined in Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. However, in this instance, the CPIO chose neither option, instead opting for inaction and disregarding the citizen's right to information.

The developments following the First Appeal reveals even more alarming developments. The CPIO of the Election Commission of India eventually responded, but the reply was nothing short of shocking. In a letter dated July 11, 2024, the CPIO stated, “The information sought is not available with the Commission and may be available with the office of the Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) of the concerned States/UTs. As the matter involves multiple public authorities, the application cannot be transferred.”

This response is concerning, as it denies access to fundamental election-related information under the RTI Act. The ECI’s refusal to provide this basic data is particularly bizarre given its role in designating Returning Officers for Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, a process carried out in consultation with State governments.

It is the ECI that Appoints Returning Officers

According to Section 21 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election Commission of India is tasked with appointing a Returning Officer for each constituency, based on consultations with state governments. The role of a Returning Officer is most crucial in election management. Tasked with overseeing elections in one, or at most two constituencies, the Returning Officer ensures the smooth conduct of elections and returns the results. Given their central role, the names of these officers are fundamental information. The Election Commission's claim of not knowing who the Returning Officers are is deeply troubling. If the ECI does not have this information, one might question who actually managed the elections. The very body responsible for appointing these officers appears to be in the dark about their identities, raising serious concerns about the integrity and transparency of the electoral process.

“Many prominent civil society actors, including several eminent retired senior government officials, sought to communicate with all Returning Officers managing the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. They enlisted my help to compile the email addresses of these officers. Along with an intern, I tried to gather this information, only to discover that details were available online for only a handful of states—Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Jharkhand, and Gujarat. Consequently, I filed an RTI application with the ECI, expecting a prompt reply. However, the denial of such basic information is deeply troubling,” Nayak explains.

Nayak further asserts, “The ECI’s response is not just an admission of lacking information; it essentially instructs me to submit RTI applications to each individual state to ascertain the identities of the Returning Officers. It is astounding that the ECI, which is responsible for appointing these officers, claims to lack this information. The ECI holds the gazette notifications for all these appointments. How can they claim ignorance? According to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, the ECI is obligated to disclose such information. The RO is a public servant who should also be accessible to the electorate.”

This situation does not imply that the ECI is hiding some great secret. Indeed, the information about Returning Officers is far from confidential. What this reveals is a concerning lack of transparency within the Election Commission of India. As an institution expected to uphold the highest standards of transparency to maintain public trust, the ECI’s failure to provide such basic information speaks volumes about the current system's mindset and operational ethos. The reluctance to disclose even fundamental details undermines confidence in the ECI’s commitment to open and accountable electoral management.

Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi criticises the ECI’s response, emphasising that the multiple authorities mentioned by the ECI are ultimately under its purview. He describes the ECI’s explanation as evasive and argues that, as the appointing authority, the ECI should have ready access to the names and contact details of Returning Officers. He further suggests that, as a best practice, this information should be published on the ECI’s website prior to the elections to ensure transparency and allow the electorate to identify the ROs.

Former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi: "As the appointing authority, if the ECI does not have this data, who would?”

“Even if the Election Commission of India primarily engages with Chief Electoral Officers across states, it should have advised the applicant to allow some time for the list to be compiled. Typically, such information is available at the ECI office. If it were not, a straightforward circular or directive to all CEOs would provide the information within hours. Should this matter reach the courts, the judiciary could question the ECI’s lack of information. As the appointing authority, if the ECI does not have this data, who would?” Quraishi questions.

Many experts who have been closely monitoring the Election Commission of India assert that the institution cannot remain insulated from scrutiny. Over the past several months, the ECI has faced a significant trust deficit, and it is now incumbent upon the Commission to demonstrate its commitment to democracy and to serving the people of the country. It should begin by at least providing basic information without being dismissive and indifferent.

Noted political economist Parakala Prabhakar states that the burden of proof lies with the ECI to address the trust deficit and restore public confidence. “There is a widespread trust deficit concerning the ECI, rooted in several issues: the controversial appointment of election commissioners, their handling of Model Code of Conduct violations, the undue delay in publishing final voting percentages, and their refusal to disclose the gross voting figures. These actions have only strengthened the trust deficit in the ECI. The current refusal to provide information about Returning Officers—whom they must have interacted with numerous times throughout the election process—reflects a pattern of conduct that has further eroded trust in the Election Commission,” asserts Prabhakar.

Parakala Prabhakar, Political Economist: "The burden of proof lies with the ECI to address the trust deficit and restore public confidence"

This issue extends beyond the ECI’s denial of basic information on a single occasion; it reflects a troubling pattern of information denial to citizens, suggesting a broader disregard for the public’s right to know and question. Nayak himself has submitted four additional RTI requests concerning the reports submitted by the Returning Officers to the ECI about all seven phases of the elections. “In response, the ECI has claimed they do not possess this information either. They suggest that the CEOs, ROs, or DEOs might have it. Can you believe the ECI saying they lack this information as well?” Nayak questions.

The Election Commission of India is mandated by the Constitution to conduct elections in a fair and free manner. Equally important is the perception of this fairness; the ECI must demonstrate transparency in its operations to gain and maintain the trust of the electorate.

Former IAS officer MG Devasahayam: "If the ECI lacks this information, then who conducted the general elections in India?"

“Did the ECI outsource the process to someone else? Since December 2018, the ECI has become increasingly insular, hermetically sealed and engaging solely with the Prime Minister’s office and restricting access to the public, voters, and political parties. It seems they now only follow directives from the Prime Minister or Home Minister,” says former IAS officer MG Devasahayam, who, along with others, recently released the "Vote for Democracy" report, which highlighted electoral manipulation in the recent general elections.

When The Probe approached the Election Commission of India for a response, we were directed to send a detailed query. We have submitted this query and are currently awaiting the ECI’s response. This article will be updated as soon as we receive a reply from the ECI.

Dive deeper with The Probe. For thoughtful analysis and in-depth stories directly to your phone, join our WhatsApp channel. Click and Connect with us Today: [WhatsApp Channel Link] 🔗

At The Probe, our commitment to social impact journalism is at the core of everything we do. Funded by well-meaning individuals from the public, our aim is to drive positive social change and make a real-world impact through the stories we report.

If you wish to support us, please visit our Truth Brigade page and contribute to a cause that resonates with you the most. It is through your support that we have been able to keep the flame of our journalism alive in these difficult times. Click link to support us to make a difference: https://theprobe.in/truth-brigade