Election: Runner-up may spoil the joy
|
Free Thinker
The Supreme Court has given an unprecedented chance to the first or second runner up to request the election authority within 7 days of the result for a recheck of the EVM – i.e., 5% of the control units, ballot units and VVPATs in the Parliamentary Constituency or Assembly segment, if there is any doubt. This checking will be done by engineers (from the manufacturers) for any possible tampering or manipulation. The Candidate has to bear the cost of this exercise. At the time of ‘checking’ the candidate and his party are allowed to witness the procedure. If any tampering is detected the expenses will be refunded. Then what? Challenge the result in the High Court with confidence.
The present election law (RPI 1951) says an election petition may be filed by any candidate challenging the result in a competent court within 45 days of the declaration of the result. The court will examine the matter and decide accordingly. If prima facie EVM tampering is found – the Court may not be reluctant to ask for a re-poll.
It appears there is a conflict of law; rather a mismatch. As per the existing law Election authority can’t touch the EVMs for 45 days after the declaration of the result – because there may be litigations within these days. Any candidate may challenge the result within this stipulated time. Now the Supreme Court is saying that within 7 days of the result a candidate (first or second runner up can make a request to check the efficacy of the machine – 5% of the functioning) that means the EVM has to be touched and examined by the engineers. Forty five days of sanctity is gone by this ruling. Resolving this issue is now ECI’s onus.
Again, even after the re-poll and declaration of the result a new runner up may make the same request to check the machine . The entire process will be repeated . If tampering is detected this time too - shall we go for a third round of polling. Don’t take it seriously – it is just a speculation.
Actually the petitioners wanted to do away with the EVM system and bring back the ballot system. It was straightaway rejected by the Court. Petitions argued that if EVM has to continue the VVPAT slips should be given to the voters and allow them to drop in a box , so that these can be tallied cent percent with the machine count at the time of counting. This was also not conceded. As of now the practice is - only the electronic count is compared with VVPAT slips for only 5 selected EVMs in every assembly segment.
However, two clear verdicts given by the Apex Court are – the Symbol Loading Units should be secured and kept in safe custody for 45 days after the result along with other EVM components. And either of the top two losers or both can make a request asking for verification of the micro-controllers in 5% of the EVMs in specified booths so that manipulation or tampering if any may be detected.
The Court observed that “blind distrust of an institution or a system breeds unwarranted skepticism and impedes progress. We appreciate the right of the citizens to question the working of the EVMs which are but an electronic device that has a direct impact on the election results. However, it is also necessary to exercise care and caution when we raise aspersions on the integrity of the electoral process. Repeated and persistent doubts and despair, even without supporting evidence, can have the constraint of creating distrust.”
The Court has made it very clear that returning to ballot papers does not arise. That would amount to turning the clock back on a system that has no significant blemishes and in fact has been widely lauded across the world. However I don’t understand why some very advanced countries still believe in the old ballot system. Perhaps they can’t comprehend the sophistication of EVMs. Maybe their population size is still good for ballots ; whereas our ECI has to handle 97 crore voters.
Let the country progress and move ahead – we may think of a new voting system more economical and advanced. Shall we introduce a voting system through mobile phones (Biometric Voting App.) invoking EPIC (elector’s photo identification card) identification and Aadhaar verification? Those who do not have a mobile phone may cast their votes through somebody’s mobile phone – it should not be a problem as voting will be done via EPIC , Aadhaar, and biometric authentication. Am I too quixotic?
The Apex Court states that EVMs have stood the test of time and the increased voting percentage is sufficient reason for us to hold that the voters have reposed faith in the current system.
Milord – this time because of your latest verdict, just after the results the number of requests from the first or second runner up for rechecking the EVMs is likely to be very high. That does not mean that EVM is tampered but the psyche of the losers are!
The Supreme Court has given an unprecedented chance to the first or second runner up to request the election authority within 7 days of the result for a recheck of the EVM – i.e., 5% of the control units, ballot units and VVPATs in the Parliamentary Constituency or Assembly segment, if there is any doubt. This checking will be done by engineers (from the manufacturers) for any possible tampering or manipulation. The Candidate has to bear the cost of this exercise. At the time of ‘checking’ the candidate and his party are allowed to witness the procedure. If any tampering is detected the expenses will be refunded. Then what? Challenge the result in the High Court with confidence.
The present election law (RPI 1951) says an election petition may be filed by any candidate challenging the result in a competent court within 45 days of the declaration of the result. The court will examine the matter and decide accordingly. If prima facie EVM tampering is found – the Court may not be reluctant to ask for a re-poll.
It appears there is a conflict of law; rather a mismatch. As per the existing law Election authority can’t touch the EVMs for 45 days after the declaration of the result – because there may be litigations within these days. Any candidate may challenge the result within this stipulated time. Now the Supreme Court is saying that within 7 days of the result a candidate (first or second runner up can make a request to check the efficacy of the machine – 5% of the functioning) that means the EVM has to be touched and examined by the engineers. Forty five days of sanctity is gone by this ruling. Resolving this issue is now ECI’s onus.
Again, even after the re-poll and declaration of the result a new runner up may make the same request to check the machine . The entire process will be repeated . If tampering is detected this time too - shall we go for a third round of polling. Don’t take it seriously – it is just a speculation.
Actually the petitioners wanted to do away with the EVM system and bring back the ballot system. It was straightaway rejected by the Court. Petitions argued that if EVM has to continue the VVPAT slips should be given to the voters and allow them to drop in a box , so that these can be tallied cent percent with the machine count at the time of counting. This was also not conceded. As of now the practice is - only the electronic count is compared with VVPAT slips for only 5 selected EVMs in every assembly segment.
However, two clear verdicts given by the Apex Court are – the Symbol Loading Units should be secured and kept in safe custody for 45 days after the result along with other EVM components. And either of the top two losers or both can make a request asking for verification of the micro-controllers in 5% of the EVMs in specified booths so that manipulation or tampering if any may be detected.
The Court observed that “blind distrust of an institution or a system breeds unwarranted skepticism and impedes progress. We appreciate the right of the citizens to question the working of the EVMs which are but an electronic device that has a direct impact on the election results. However, it is also necessary to exercise care and caution when we raise aspersions on the integrity of the electoral process. Repeated and persistent doubts and despair, even without supporting evidence, can have the constraint of creating distrust.”
The Court has made it very clear that returning to ballot papers does not arise. That would amount to turning the clock back on a system that has no significant blemishes and in fact has been widely lauded across the world. However I don’t understand why some very advanced countries still believe in the old ballot system. Perhaps they can’t comprehend the sophistication of EVMs. Maybe their population size is still good for ballots ; whereas our ECI has to handle 97 crore voters.
Let the country progress and move ahead – we may think of a new voting system more economical and advanced. Shall we introduce a voting system through mobile phones (Biometric Voting App.) invoking EPIC (elector’s photo identification card) identification and Aadhaar verification? Those who do not have a mobile phone may cast their votes through somebody’s mobile phone – it should not be a problem as voting will be done via EPIC , Aadhaar, and biometric authentication. Am I too quixotic?
The Apex Court states that EVMs have stood the test of time and the increased voting percentage is sufficient reason for us to hold that the voters have reposed faith in the current system.
Milord – this time because of your latest verdict, just after the results the number of requests from the first or second runner up for rechecking the EVMs is likely to be very high. That does not mean that EVM is tampered but the psyche of the losers are!