Polling stations serve as the cornerstone of India’s democratic process, where citizens exercise their fundamental right to vote. Managed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324 of the Constitution, these venues ensure free and fair elections. This article explores the legal framework governing polling stations, relevant case laws, and security protocols, drawing from statutory provisions like the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and ECI guidelines. With India’s vast electorate—over 900 million voters in recent cycles—polling stations must balance accessibility, integrity, and safety.
In accordance with Section 26(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, every polling station is placed under the plenary control and supervision of a Presiding Officer. Charged with the statutory duty to conduct the poll pursuant to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (with specific reference to Rules 13 and 49), the Presiding Officer serves as the primary custodian of the booth’s integrity, ensuring the electoral process remains free, fair, and orderly.
Assured Minimum Facilities (AMF) at Polling Stations in India
The Election Commission of India mandates Assured Minimum Facilities (AMF) at every polling station to ensure voter comfort, accessibility, dignity, and inclusive participation, especially for senior citizens, persons with disabilities (PwD), and voters in remote, rural, or adverse weather conditions.
These essential amenities include a properly graded ramp (typically 1:10 or gentler) for wheelchair access, clean drinking water (at least 300 litres with disposable glasses), a covered waiting shed with seating to protect voters from sun or rain, separate functional toilets for men and women with adequate water supply, sufficient lighting inside and around the station, a first-aid medical kit for minor emergencies, clear directional signage and voter-education posters, standardized secret voting compartments, and PwD-specific aids such as Braille on EVMs, wheelchairs, and volunteer assistance; all these are verified by District Election Officers, sector magistrates, and observers, with non-compliance monitored through photo uploads to ECI portals, collectively minimizing inconvenience and promoting higher, equitable turnout across diverse geographies.
Legal Framework for Polling Stations
The establishment and operation of polling stations are primarily regulated by the RPA, 1951, and supplemented by the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) issued by the ECI. These laws aim to promote transparency, prevent malpractices, and facilitate voter participation.
Establishment of Polling Stations
Under Section 25 of the RPA, 1951, the District Election Officer (DEO), with the previous approval of the Election Commission of India, is responsible for identifying, setting up, and publishing the list of polling stations in their district. Key norms include:
- Voters should not travel more than 2 km to reach a polling station.
- Each polling station must have a minimum area of 20 square meters.
- A single station serves a maximum of 1,500 electors.
- Villages with over 300 voters must have their own polling station.
Private buildings are requisitioned only as a last resort, requisitioned under statutory authority, subject to compensation The ECI emphasizes using government or public buildings to maintain neutrality.
Regulations Around Polling Stations
To prevent undue influence, Section 130 of the RPA, 1951 prohibits canvassing, political propaganda, or the use of cameras and mobile phones within a 100-meter radius of the polling station, with violations punishable by arrest without warrant. The MCC further restricts activities such as holding public meetings 48 hours before polls end and transporting voters to polling stations.
Political parties may set up election booths beyond 200 meters from the station, limited to one table, two chairs, and basic shelter. Inside the polling station, entry is regulated: only voters, polling officers, candidates, one polling agent per candidate, ECI observers, and authorized media are allowed. Security personnel accompanying individuals must remain outside.
Special provisions exist for vulnerable groups. For instance, ‘pardanashin’ (veiled) women voters require separate enclosures for identification, ensuring privacy and dignity. Polling hours typically run from 7 AM to 6 PM, with extensions possible for those in queue by closing time via a token system introduced in recent elections to manage last-hour rushes.
The ECI’s manual on polling stations mandates that stations be accessible, with ramps for persons with disabilities and separate queues for seniors and pregnant women. Violations of these norms can lead to repolling or invalidation of results.
Key Case Laws Related to Polling Stations and Elections
Indian courts have shaped election laws through landmark judgments, emphasizing the ECI’s plenary powers and the sanctity of the polling process. Judicial scrutiny of polling stations has consistently balanced voter access, procedural legality, and the Election Commission’s constitutional autonomy.
Below are significant cases:
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977): A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the ECI’s broad authority under Article 324 to declare polls void and order repolling in an entire constituency if irregularities, like booth capturing or violence, compromise fairness. The Court interpreted “superintendence, direction, and control” as plenary, allowing intervention beyond statutory limits to ensure free elections. This arose from violence at polling stations in Punjab, reinforcing that arbitrary deprivation of voting rights is unconstitutional.
A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984): The Supreme Court held that voting must strictly follow prescribed legal methods, ruling manual ballots during EVM failures invalid without ECI approval. It stressed uniform, legally sanctioned procedures at polling stations to prevent arbitrariness and manipulation.
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002): The Supreme Court affirmed voters’ right to know key candidate details. While focused on disclosures, it indirectly bolstered polling integrity by enabling informed choices and curbing undue influence at booths.
Dornigeni Govindu v. Election Commission of India (2019): This Andhra Pradesh High Court case addressed arbitrary shifting of polling stations, citing violations of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and directed restoration to the original location for voter convenience and safety. It is a niche judgment on booth location issues.
Recent updates (2024–2026) include the Electoral Bonds scheme struck down in 2024, new criminal laws effective July 2024, ECI independence concerns after the 2023 Act (with 2025 appointments criticized), and One Nation, One Election (Constitution 129th Amendment Bill introduced December 2024, passed in Lok Sabha, under JPC review; implementation distant). Cases like Govind Yadav v. Union of India (2024) clarified party deregistration under Section 29A RPA, though indirectly related to polling.
Taken together, these judgments reaffirm that polling stations must remain neutral, intimidation-free spaces, with the Election Commission empowered to act firmly for free and fair elections.
Security Measures at Polling Stations
The Election Commission of India adopts a risk-based, multi-layered security framework to safeguard polling stations and ensure intimidation-free voting. Central to this framework is vulnerability mapping, through which polling stations are classified as normal, sensitive, or critical based on past election violence, booth capturing, voter intimidation, abnormal turnout patterns, and local law-and-order assessments drawn from previous electoral cycles.
Based on this assessment, security deployment is calibrated accordingly. Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) are prioritised for sensitive and critical polling stations to ensure neutrality, while State Police, State Armed Police, and Home Guards manage general law-and-order duties at other locations. Sector officers supervise clusters of polling stations, and technological measures—such as CCTV cameras, webcasting, videography, drones, and micro-observers—enable real-time monitoring. Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and election materials are secured through GPS-tracked transport and double-locked strong rooms under continuous CAPF or State Police guard, in accordance with ECI protocols.
State-Specific Illustrations of Security Deployment
The application of this framework varies significantly across states, reflecting differing electoral histories and ground realities. In West Bengal, the Election Commission of India frequently deploys Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) in substantial numbers—often positioning them inside or immediately outside polling stations during sensitive phases. For instance, around 480 CAPF companies are likely to be pre-deployed from March 2026 for area domination and confidence-building ahead of Assembly elections, particularly in vulnerable pockets identified through detailed mapping.
By contrast, in comparatively lower-risk states such as Rajasthan, routine polling-station security is largely handled by State Police personnel, typically using standard crowd-control measures such as lathis. CAPF deployment in these states is generally limited to sensitive or critical booths, allowing conservation of central forces for higher-risk regions nationwide. This differentiated, evidence-based approach—guided by ECI manuals and continuous vulnerability assessments—optimises security resources while upholding the constitutional mandate of free, fair, and peaceful elections across India’s diverse electoral landscape.
Questions have, from time to time, been raised regarding the criteria applied in matters of CAPF deployment, election phasing, and ancillary electoral arrangements. Such concerns, though largely perceptual in nature, are mitigated by the constitutional status of the Election Commission and the overarching framework of judicial oversight, which together serve as checks against arbitrariness and political influence.
Recent Updates (2024–2026)
Following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, parliamentary and judicial discourse on electoral reforms has intensified, focusing on efficiency, transparency, and institutional credibility within India’s electoral framework.
Key developments include:
- The new criminal laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which came into force in July 2024, replaced colonial-era statutes. Certain provisions—such as Section 152, dealing with acts endangering the sovereignty or unity of the nation—have been criticised by opposition parties, civil liberties groups, and constitutional scholars for their potential implications on free speech and the handling of election-related offences during campaign periods.
- The proposal for One Nation, One Election (simultaneous elections) has progressed procedurally, with Constitution Amendment Bills introduced in late 2024, approved by the Union Cabinet, and referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. While proponents argue that simultaneous polls may improve administrative efficiency and reduce election-related expenditure, legal experts and parliamentary commentators have highlighted significant constitutional, federal, and logistical challenges, making implementation unlikely before 2029–2034.
- Concerns regarding the institutional independence of the Election Commission of India have gained prominence following the enactment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. Appointments made under the new selection framework in 2025 have been questioned by opposition parties, former election commissioners, and constitutional analysts, who argue that greater executive influence over appointments may affect the perception of neutrality in election administration. These issues continue to be examined in public debate and pending judicial proceedings.
- The Electoral Bonds scheme remains invalidated following the Supreme Court’s February 2024 judgment, which held the scheme unconstitutional for violating voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a). Subsequent disclosures of donor data have informed ongoing policy discussions among lawmakers, election reform advocates, and scholars regarding alternative mechanisms for political funding, including electoral trusts and enhanced disclosure norms.
As India approaches forthcoming state assembly elections and biennial Rajya Sabha polls, these developments continue to shape the legal and institutional environment in which polling stations operate, reinforcing the importance of transparency, constitutional accountability, and public confidence in the electoral process.
Conclusion
Polling stations in India stand as the bedrock of the world’s largest democracy, embodying the constitutional guarantee under Article 324 of free and fair elections through a meticulously crafted legal framework anchored in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and evolving Election Commission of India guidelines. Landmark judicial pronouncements—from Mohinder Singh Gill (1977) affirming the ECI’s plenary powers to combat irregularities like booth capturing, to A.C. Jose (1984) mandating strict adherence to prescribed voting procedures, and more recent rulings emphasizing voter accessibility and neutrality—have consistently reinforced the sanctity of these venues as intimidation-free spaces where citizens exercise their franchise without fear or favour.
Robust security protocols, including vulnerability mapping, CAPF deployments, real-time surveillance via CCTV, webcasting, drones, and micro-observers, coupled with prohibitions on canvassing, private armed personnel, and disruptions within designated radii, have ensured largely peaceful polling, as evidenced in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and anticipated for the 2026 Assembly polls in key states such as West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry (alongside ongoing Rajya Sabha biennial elections).
Amid contemporary debates on reforms like One Nation, One Election (still under parliamentary scrutiny with implementation unlikely before 2029–2034), new criminal laws potentially affecting campaign freedoms, persistent concerns over ECI independence post-2023 appointment changes, and the enduring fallout from the struck-down Electoral Bonds scheme, these foundational institutions must continue to evolve with unwavering commitment to transparency, inclusivity, and impartiality to safeguard democratic integrity for India’s over 900 million voters in an era of heightened scrutiny and rapid change.
In an era of technological surveillance, political polarisation, and heightened institutional scrutiny, the credibility of India’s democracy is ultimately tested not in courtrooms or legislatures, but within the ordinary polling station.
