India, Maharashtra, vijay kumbhar, News, Governance, RTI, Transparency, Civic Issues, Real Estate: April 2019

Is a threat of FIR in case of a wrong complaint against EVM’s deviant behavior justifiable? Can a person accused of any offence be compelled to be a witness against himself? We will get answers to these question after hearing of a petition in the Supreme court. Mumbai based Lawyer and RTI activist Sunil Ahya has challenged the validity of the penal provision in case of mismatched voting. Ahya mentioned this petition before Chief Justice on 24 April. Court ordered to list the matter On 26 April however on that case was not listed hence Ahya again mentioned it on 26th and court ordered to list it on 29th. So petition may be admitted on 29th of April.

Ahya has prayed Supreme Court to set aside Rule 49MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 except for the procedure prescribed for purpose of creating a statistical record of the complaints; and to register the complaint of any deviant behavior of the electronic machines/equipment used in the process.

There may be counter arguments on the complaint that ‘Press Any EVM Button and vote go to an unintended candidate”. But the political leaders like Sharad Pawar, Arvind Kejriwal, sushilkumar Shinde, Akhilesh Yadav, Mayavati and thousands of other people across India have complained outside polling booths about EVM VVPAT vote mismatch. However, not sure if machine’s behavior during test vote & scared of facing FIR, no one except one in Sangli of Maharashtra challenged mismatched vote under section 49 (MA) of election rules.

Even ex DGP of Assam alleged EVM tampering after casting vote but didn’t dare to complain. This needs to be changed. The person casting vote should be sure of his vote has gone to the intended candidate only. If there is doubt in his mind it should be cleared immediately.

Rule 49MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 mandates elector to give declaration in case of mismatched voting. This rule read with section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, criminalizes the reporting of deviant behavior of EVM & VVPAT. After complaint of mismatched voting the presiding officer if an elector after having recorded his vote under rule 49M alleges that the paper slip generated by the printer has shown the name or symbol of a candidate other than the one he voted for, the presiding officer has to obtain a written declaration from the elector as to the allegation. And after such declaration is obtained the Presiding Officer then permits the elector to record a test vote in the voting machine in his presence and in the presence of the candidate or his representative.

Also, is it fair and just to charge an elector for reporting such deviant behavior and to ask himself to be a witness against himself? As per article 20(3) of the Constitution. No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

This all system puts the burden of proof on the elector, who has to face the criminal charges irrespective of whether that reporting is truthful and honest. This deters an elector from coming forth and making any complaint. This system also gives clean chit to the machine against which complaint has been made. Faulty machines sometimes may also record correct results. And that is the reason people don’t dare to complain even if they are sure of deviant behavior of EVM. Hence should be allowed to complain without fear of any action against him.

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Validity of penal provision in case of wrong complaint against EVM’s deviant behavior challenged in SC

Related Stories