Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.Before proceeding to deal with the allegations made in the application, it is necessary to set out the allegations made in the original Election Petition. The admitted facts in the election petition are as follows:

The election to the 15th Lok Sabha was notified by the Election Commission of India on 23.3.2009. Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu was concerned, the date of polling was notified on 13.5.2009 and declaration of results was to be made on 16.5.2009. Unlike previous polling, elections were held by exercising franchise through Electronic Voting Machines (for short EVM). In the election held to the Ramanathapuram constituency, the applicant was declared as returned candidate by the 15th respondent under the 17th respondent. It is claimed that the first respondent / the original election petitioner is an Advocate by profession. He was brought into the politics by the former late Chief Minister M.G.Ramachandran. He was a member of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly for the year 1980-1984 for the first term and during 1991-96 for the second term. He was the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council at Kadaladi during 1986-1990. His worth was noted by the then Chief Minister Selvi J.Jayalalitha. He was inducted as a Minister in her cabinet holding the Commercial Tax Department. He was elected as a Member of Parliament during the year 1998-99. He was also the District Secretary of the AIDAMK party from January, 2009 and held the office of the State Organizing Secretary and State Headquarters Secretary on earlier occasions.

12.Apart from these allegations, it was further claimed that the applicant was born in Kandy, Srilanka. His parents were the residents of Srilanka. It was not clear as to how he had secured Indian citizenship. He had made a misrepresentation as if he was a citizen of India. He is not entitled to stand or contest in the election to become a member of Parliament. He had given false status in the affidavit filed before the election officer at the time of filing of his nomination.

13.Thereafter, it was further submitted that the Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) were unreliable and there was no possibility of finding out the actual votes polled and to whom it was voted. The cross verification was impossible. The entire operation was done by a micro chip. It was possible to corrupt and manipulate the chip. In many polling booths in the Ramanathapuram constituency, there were complaints that on the button being pressed in favour of the first respondent, votes were transferred in favour of the applicant. In the manual voting system, verification was possible. But in the EVM machines, no such verification was possible. Substantial electorate in the Ramanathapuram constituency were illiterates. They were not fully conversant in pressing buttons in the EVM machines. In one of the booth at Rameswaram, when the first voter entered to tender his vote, he found that there were already 64 votes were entered even before his entry. The first respondent is willing to substantiate the unreliability of EVM machines.

26.From the averments made in the application for striking off the election petition and the counter affidavits filed by the original election petitioner as well as by the 13th respondent, the following issues arise for consideration by this Court :

(1)Was the Election Petition properly presented before this Court ?

(2)Was the introduction of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) vitiated the election process?

(3)Whether the allegation that the applicant is not an Indian Citizen and therefore disqualified from contesting election can be accepted?

28.Issue No.2 :Was the introduction of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) vitiated the election process?

28.1.These allegations are made in broad terms and no details were given. The Election Commission of India had made a policy decision to introduce the Electronic Voting Machines. It is not only used for the applicant's constituency, but used throughout the India. This issue cannot be gone into in the absence of any material particulars showing that the EVMs used in the applicant's constituency were programmed in such a way that every vote even if pressed in respect of the other candidate will result in it registering votes in favour of the applicant. Since material particulars are lacking, such broad and vague allegations cannot be gone into in this application. Hence this allegation stands rejected.