How the final vote percentage increased after voting, Supreme Court seeks answer from Election Commission

Clash over final voting percentage figures

In its petition, ADR has demanded from the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission to publish the voting figures within 48 hours of the end of voting. When the bench asked 'what is the difficulty in uploading polling data on the website', the Election Commission's counsel replied. “It takes time because we have to collect a lot of data,” he said. The Chief Justice said that the Election Commission should be given some time to respond to the petition. The bench listed it for hearing before a vacation bench on May 24, a day before the sixth phase of elections. Earlier on April 26, the Supreme Court had rejected the petition to bring back ADR in ballot paper and raising doubts on EVMs.

Data should be known immediately after voting, delay causes doubt, application filed in Supreme Court

ADR raised questions on voting figures

The Election Commission's lawyer raised questions on the petition filed by ADR in the Supreme Court. Election Commission counsel and senior advocate Maninder Singh emphasized that senior officials of the Commission had responded to every doubt expressed by the NGO's lawyer Prashant Bhushan on the petition filed last time. In that petition, doubts were expressed on the fairness of the election process and an appeal was made to vote through ballot paper. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission, said that the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has made completely false allegations in the petition. Moreover, a recent judgment of another bench of the apex court headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna has dealt with issues which are also part of the present case.

Election Commission lawyers opposed the new petition

On April 26, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta, after several negotiations with Election Commission officials, rejected the plea seeking re-adoption of ballot papers and 100 per cent matching of votes cast from EVMs with VVPATs. Was. The Supreme Court had clearly said during the hearing that EVMs are reliable. Now on the new petition of ADR, Election Commission's lawyer Maninder Singh said, 'Just because Prashant Bhushan wants to bring anything in the court through an application, that too in a petition pending since 2019, the court should not consider it. , This is an attempt to disrupt the election process, four phases of which have been completed smoothly. Prashant Bhushan opposed this petition saying that the issue related to voter voting data was not a part of the previous petition.

Why the difference of four to six percent in voting figures? Know what the Election Commission is saying

If necessary, will sit all night for hearing: SC

The CJI-led bench objected to the allegation of giving preference to Prashant Bhushan and said, 'This is a false allegation. If we feel that an issue requires the court's attention and intervention, we will do so. It doesn't matter who brings it before the court. If necessary, we will sit the whole night to hear the case. In fact, the bench heard this ADR petition at 6.10 pm, a few hours after the end of the scheduled business time.

On April 26, a bench of Justice Khanna and Justice Dutta had said, 'In our view, EVMs are simple, secure and user friendly. Voters, candidates, their representatives and Election Commission officials are aware of the intricacies of the EVM system. The inclusion of VVPAT system strengthens the principle of vote verification. This increases the overall accountability of the electoral process. Justice Khanna and Justice Dutta had also detailed the process of counting and publishing the voting percentage under Form 17C.

This is how the matter of voting percentage reached the court.

Soon after the letter written by Congress, TMC and CPM to the Election Commission, ADR had moved the Supreme Court with an application. The petition has alleged inordinate delay in releasing the final vote counting data of the first and second phase of the ongoing elections. ADR alleged that the final figures of voting held on April 19 were published on April 30. Voting for the second phase took place on 26 April and its final figures were published on 30 April. In this way, the final data of the first phase of voting was released after 11 days and the final data of the second phase of voting was released after 4 days.

Fact Check: 'EVM came in 2009 and was installed by the Congress government', know the truth of this viral post

ADR made this appeal to the Supreme Court

The ADR said, 'If we compare the final polling figures given by the Election Commission in the press release of April 30, it is about 5-6 percent more than the figures received on the day of polling. The inordinate delay in releasing the final polling figures and the subsequent unusual discrepancy of more than 5 per cent in the Election Commission press note issued on April 30 raises questions. ADR appealed to the Supreme Court and said that these apprehensions should be removed. To maintain voter confidence, it is necessary that the Election Commission be directed to display scanned copies of Form 17C Part I (Account of Recorded Votes) of all polling stations on its website. It should contain certified data of votes cast within 48 hours of the end of polling.