Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. At the request of the learned Counsel, the adjournments were sought mainly by the petitioner and the respondent and their counsel for personal pre-occupation and therefore, this Court granted adjournments time to time as per the convenience of the petitioner, though this is a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he contested the election in the said constituency as the official candidate of Indian National Congress, a registered political party and respondent No.1 was the official candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party, a registered political party. The petitioner has challenged the election and the result mainly on the grounds of mal practices or corrupt practices and tampering of electronic voting machines, which had taken place in his ep.15.2014(J).doc constituency i.e., 212, Parvati Assembly Constituency. The challenge is also given on the ground that his polling agents were not given entry at the time of mock poll conducted at the polling stations i.e., 185 and 242 of 212, Parvati Assembly Constituency, on the ground that name and signature of his election agent Sunil Shinde was not correctly given. It is the case of the petitioner that votes of several supporters of the petitioner, who had voted for him, were not counted in his favor and thus, there is discrepancy with the election results. Thus, physical count of votes cast by his supporters does not match with the election results thereby led the discrepancy and thus, there is a blatant abuse of the election procedure.

"49A. Design of electronic voting machines - Every electronic voting machine (hereinafter referred to as the voting machine) shall have a control unit and a balloting unit and shall be of such designs as may be approved by the Election Commission:

Provided that a printer with a drop box of such design, as may be approved by the Election Commission, may also be ep.15.2014(J).doc attached to a voting machine for printing a paper trail of the vote, in such constituency or constituencies or parts thereof as the Election Commission may direct.

23. Let me assess the evidence of the petitioner and the other witnesses on these points. Firstly, on the points of grievance of functioning of EVMs, the petitioner has stated that he sent a letter dated 19.10.2014 to the Chief Election Commissioner and which was received by the office of the CEC on 24.10.2014. It is marked at exhibit 5. In the said letter, he has mentioned the subject as "Tampering of EVMs during the State Assembly elections". This letter was sent by him on the day where he had knowledge that he had lost the elections. In the letter, he has stated that his complaint is based on well researched suspicion that EVMs have been tampered with and the result of election is manipulated. He has pointed out that it has taken place in 212, Parvati Legislative Assembly Constituency. He submitted the the election agent was Sunil Shinde and the name and signature of different person had been circulated to all polling agents and because of this, none of the polling agents was in a position to vet the actual signature of his election agent and it left the door open for manipulations. He has specifically referred to the exercise of mock poll which was carried ep.15.2014(J).doc out to check functioning of EVMs. However, his all polling agents in polling stations were deprived of attending the mock poll and check whether the buttons were properly pressed and the machines are showing '0' figure. He has mentioned that it was the duty of the Chief Election Commissioner of Maharashtra to provide VVPAT to the EVMs to ensure physical verification of the acknowledgement slips in the event of disputes. However, ordinary EVMs have been issued for this process. He has expressed his fear about tampering of EVM through wire of the button A and button B connected to the in box. So he has demanded forensic enquiry into all EVMs. His supporters had communicated him the physical count of voting and it does not tally with the election results and so, he placed the said letter as a formal complaint as he wanted time to put up his grievance systematically. In his evidence, he relied on one letter (exhibit 6) dated 16.8.2014, which he had sent to the Election Commissioner, Government of Maharashtra in the capacity of President, Pune District Congress Committee. The subject was regarding EVMs. Two months prior to assembly elections, the letter was sent when the District Collector had invited the reports of all the political parties to check the electronic voting machines and after inspection, the petitioner has communicated the observations of his representatives ep.15.2014(J).doc that all the EVMs had been brought from Uttar Pradesh and has expressed doubt about the authenticity of the machines and also expressed surprise that some machines were earlier used for the LokSabha elections and then how those machines can be used within six months for the Assembly elections of Maharashtra. He has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy (supra).

75. The petitioner has not made personal allegations against the respondent No.1, the elected candidate. No charges are made about hacking machines administration of mal-practices or use of threat, muscle power or vote purchasing, etc. The petitioner appears to be fair and balanced in not making baseless and irrelevant allegations against the elected candidate 1. The petitioner has in fact challenged the election machinery and the voting system and the use of Electronic Voting machines without VVPAT. Thus, though the main contesting party was the elected candidate, who would have been a sufferer of the fall-out of the decision of this case, the main grievance was against respondent No.3, the Election Commission of India. However, the Election Commission of India who appeared through its Counsel, rendered all necessary assistance and furnished the required information.