Citing the increase in voting percentage, the NGO expressed apprehension that electronic voting machines are likely to be replaced. The court has ordered the Election Commission to file its reply by May 24. ADR had sought direction to the Election Commission to publish voting figures within 48 hours of the end of polling.What did the Election Commission say on this question of the court?
The Supreme Court bench asked what is the problem in uploading voting data on the website? The Election Commission's lawyer said that it takes time because we have to collect a lot of data. On April 26, the Supreme Court had rejected ADR's petition to withdraw the ballot papers and cast doubt on EVMs. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission, stressed that senior officials of the Commission have responded to every doubt expressed by the NGO's lawyer Prashant Bhushan. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta had rejected the 'back to ballot' petition on April 26 after holding several talks with Election Commission officials. Doubts against EVMs were dismissed by saying that they are reliable. Singh said that just because Bhushan felt like bringing anything through the 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.
'If necessary, we will sit all night'
The CJI-led bench took exception to the allegation of preferential treatment being given to 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, regardless of who brings it before the court. If necessary, we will sit the whole night to hear the case. In fact, the bench heard the petition at 6.10 pm, a few hours late from the scheduled time. On April 26, Justice Khanna and Dutta had said that in our view EVMs are simple, secure and user friendly. Voters, candidates and their representatives and Election Commission officials are aware of the intricacies of the EVM system. The inclusion of the VVPAT system strengthens the principle of vote verification, thereby increasing the overall accountability of the electoral process.
Justice Khanna and Justice Dutta had also detailed the process of calculation and publication of voting percentage under Form 17C – the most important part for ascertaining the number of votes polled. The bench said that each polling agent was given information about the voting percentage. ADR had filed an application in the court soon after Congress, TMC and CPM wrote letters to the Election Commission, alleging inordinate delay in releasing the final voting figures for the first and second phases of the ongoing elections. happened. The ADR alleged that voter turnout data for phase 19 was published on April 30 and for phase two on April 26 after a delay of 11 and four days respectively.
'Difference in Election Commission data'
ADR said, 'The data published in the Election Commission's press release on April 30 shows a sharp increase (about 5-6%) compared to the initial percentage declared till 7 pm on the polling day. The inordinate delay in releasing final voter turnout data, as well as unusually high revisions (more than 5%) in the Election Commission's 30 April press note, and the absence of complete numbers of disaggregated constituency and polling station data raised concerns. have increased and the public has doubts about the authenticity of the said data. The NGO further said that these apprehensions should be addressed and addressed. In order to maintain the confidence of voters, it is necessary to direct the Election Commission to display scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part-I (Account of Recorded Votes) of all polling stations on its website. Which contains certified data of votes cast within 48 hours of the end of polling.
, ArticlesDiv.innerHTML += ArticleHTML; , } //Initially fetch and render feeds FetchAndRenderFeeds();
