Patiala ‘election audio clip’: HC pulls up EC, orders independent forensic probe

The bench said the Election Commission’s ultimate objective was to ensure free and fair elections, which could be achieved only if its actions were impartial and transparent. The court noted that it had earlier raised concerns over the fairness of the election process, particularly in Patiala, and had expected the Commission to take corrective steps.

The bench observed that it was surprising that its earlier suggestion to have the electronic material examined by an independent agency had not been acted upon. The Commission should have itself forwarded the material to an external agency to remove doubts and complaints surrounding the matter, it said.

During the hearing, the court underlined that the administrative and thepolice machinery functioned under the control and supervision of the Election Commission during the election period. It rejected the argument that jurisdictional limitations prevented the Commission from sending the material outside its domain, stating that “all actions taken by the police or other authorities during elections were subject to the Commission’s oversight”.

The case stems from petitions seeking an independent inquiry into the conduct of the Patiala SSP, whose voice was purportedly heard in the circulated audio clip. An FIR has been registered under provisions related to misinformation and offences under the Information Technology Act, and the clip is under investigation.

According to the petitioners, the clip contained instructions to “stop political opponents, act on the directions of a local legislator, provide favourable reports for supporters of the ruling party, and ensure rejection of nomination papers to engineer uncontested victories,” allegedly in violation of the Model Code of Conduct.

The Election Commission and the Punjab government told the court that forensic verification could not proceed as the original recording device had not been produced despite repeated notices to the complainants. To this, the bench said the Commission has wide constitutional and statutory powers during elections and can even suspend officers functioning under its control.

When the Commission argued that there was no explicit mandate allowing it to refer the matter to an external agency, the court said it possessed ample authority to act in the interest of free and fair elections and asked the Commission to point out any provision that restrained it from doing so.