The protesting villagers had said they would not vote in the election unless Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Deb met with them and pledged to deliver on their demands, ANI said. On the morning of Tuesday, April 23, the day the Tripura East constituency went to the polls, local administration and police officials met with the villagers, “and convinced them to cast their vote after it was committed that all their promises will be fulfilled,” ANI said, adding that since that morning, voter turnout was zero at the Bhagirath Para polling centre. The BJP’s candidate for the constituency, Rebati Tripura, had accused supporters of the Opposition of threatening the villagers if they voted, ANI said.
The villagers had alleged that, in 2012, the previous government had taken Rs. 1,400 as an advance to supply electricity, but had not followed through. They also demanded water for pipelines that had been installed a long time ago, a higher number of teachers, and a hostel facility for students, ANI reported. The protesters, primarily youths, also demanded that a market shed, a panchayat office, and other essential facilities be established.
This was not the only boycott in Tripura. At around 10:30am on the day of the polls, The Hindu reported that 20 families in the state’s North Durgapur village in the Khowai sub-division were boycotting the polls after a local youth was allegedly assaulted by personnel from a paramilitary force. Separately, ANI reported that villagers in Gandacherra, also in the Dhalai district, were boycotting the Lok Sabha polls due to lack of adequate medical care. ANI said several villagers were suffering from fever, and spoke to one resident, who said that no doctor or officer was coming to the area, that medication was not available and that they had no money.
Misplaced votes and the farce of ‘Free and Fair’ elections as EC refuses to hard test machines and criminalises complainants
Even as phase three of Lok Sabha polls got over on April 23, 2019 things look far from ‘free and fair’. Several places reported ‘malfunctioning’ Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). On a closer look at the mammoth number of complaints, these hardy fall into the category of ‘malfunction.’ This detailed report looks at the experiences of voters across various polling booths Election Commission’s approach to reports of complaints.
Convenient exchange of symbols? In Moradabad, people who voted at booth no. 86 alleged that when they pressed the “cycle button” (symbol for Samajwadi party), “lotus symbol came”. Lotus is the election sign for BJP. It was reported that when they tried to complain to the polling officer, they were told, “koi baat nahi” (no problem).
In the Jorhat constituency of Assam, the returning officer Vishal Vasant Solanki said that all EVMs in his custody are being put through a second level of test of test by engineers on reports of a ‘malfunction’ where all votes casted went to BJP.
Another voter in Kerala complained, “I have voted for Congress, but the picture [that] came on the (VVPAT) screen and the slip was lotus. I want to cast my vote again.”
Reports emerged of more than 20 EVMs ‘malfunction’ in Kasaragod, as five machines developed ‘technical glitches in Kayankulam. In Wayanad, the NDA candidate Thushar Vellappally demanded re-polling after an EVM malfunction.
Malayalam magazine Manorama reported that a faulty EVM in a booth at KizhakkeNalpathu near Cherthala had to be replaced after it was found that all votes were registered for BJP.
In Odisha, polling in two booths was adjourned due to incorrect pairing of EVM and VVPAT
Can EVMs be hacked “easily” Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu on April 23 alleged that EVMs are vulnerable to “hacking and programming errors”, and urged the EC to check all polling machines after elections.
Naidu also alleged that EVMs can be hacked easily by using “many methods.”
In Uttar Pradesh, SP leader Azam Khan’s son said, “More than 300 EVMs aren’t working”, accusing the District Magistrate of doing this “on purpose.” In UP’s Rohilkhand region, more than 50 polling booths reported EVM ‘malfunction’ early morning.
Criminal negligence? SP leader Akhilesh Yadav called this as a case of “criminal negligence” as he reported that polling officials were “untrained” for a polling exercise that costs Rs. 50,000 crores.
In Goa, During a mandatory mock polling exercise, EVMs were adding votes to BJP. During the mock poll, in which 9 votes were cast for each candidate, the BJP candidate received 17 votes, Congress 9, AAP 8 and 1 independent.
Election of shame ? Mock poll with 9 votes for each of 6 candidates in booth no 31 in 34 AC in Goa. Total count BJP gets 17, Cong 9 , Aap 8. Ind 1 . Robbery. @SpokespersonECI , @CEO_Goa claims are hollow . @AamAadmiParty pl take up
The machines were replaced for AC34, PS no 31 as per report from DEO South Goa.
In Karnataka, where the voting took place for the remaining 14 seats, Minister Priyank Kharge wrote, “Way too many EVMs are malfunctioning in Chittapur. Over 20 reported so far. Hope the district administration has enough backups.”
A TDP delegate highlighted how EVMs are not displaying the printed slips for seven seconds as prescribed in the VVPAT manual, but only for three seconds.
Criminalisation of complainants In Assam, former Assam DGP Harekrishna Deka alleged that the VVPAT machine at a polling booth ‘malfunctioned’ as the machine displayed some other name and not the one he had voted for. He said that he was the first to go inside the polling booth at Lachit Nagar LP school. When he voted, “it didn’t show the name of the candidate” against whom he had pressed the button. When he reported that there was some anomaly, he was told that he can “challenge it”. Additionally he was also told that in case of a false complaint, he will be punished for six months. Case was filed against a voter in Thiruvananthapuram after complaints of faulty EVM
Tedious reporting of complaints The procedure to report a fault or error in the functioning of an EVM involves signing a declaration form by the complainant voter that they testify that the things reported in their complaint are true. This is an intimidating affair for a country whose population lives in poverty and a constant fear of harassment by public authorities. Ideally, such a declaration shouldn’t be required from the complainant and they should be allowed to report and complain about any errors they spot. Moreover, the complainant can be jailed for a ‘false’ complaint and can be fined upto Rs. 1000. It’s hard to fathom that in view of such stringent measures, why would an ordinary, working voter, who has taken a day out from their lives for voting, bother themselves with a complaint which may land them in trouble?
Not only that, even if the EVM is working fine, it has been reported that the VVPAT slips can be only seen for three seconds instead of the seven seconds as mentioned in the manual. Three seconds is too short a time for any voter to confidently flag an error even if they spot it.
The onus of proving the complaint is on the complainant. How is an ordinary voter who, far from being familiar with the technology and may even be using the technology for the first time, is supposed to prove their complaint?
Approach of Election Commission Questions on the accountability of EVM machines need to be addressed in a transparent way.
As reports of EVM ‘malfunction’ emerged from Andhra Pradesh, TDP delegate Hari Prasad raised fresh concerns over the functioning of the machines on the ground. On the reports that the VVPATs weren’t showing the slips for seven seconds, he noted that either there was a change in the code, or the EVMs are faulty. As rightly questioned in an article on Quint, this should have been investigated by the EC.
Instead it decided not to engage with the questions, and, moreover, raised questions on its impartiality and decisions. Even in the past, the EC filed a complaint of theft against Hari Prasad instead of acting on the issue.
Several questions arise here. How does the EC ensure the security of EVM especially when they have not checked or audited each EVM?
If there was a change in the code, was the change tested enough, or at all?
Has the code for the EVMs been centrally tested or it gets tested at the local level?
Where are the machines coming from and how is their security maintained?
Are there clear instructions to store the machines in a safe and secure manner? For example, the returning officer at Assam’s Jorhat constituency said, “These [faulty] EVMs were here for a long period. Usually EVMs are kept in the custody of the deputy commissioner and during elections they are taken to strong rooms.”
The Election Commission’s stance has been that EVM are tamper proof because they are not ‘networked’, and its code is signed to ensure no can change it. But what is the legitimacy of this claim?
In most countries such technological tools –open to mass use by the public — go through robust testing mechanisms. Entire teams of testers work together to break the code and find bugs. Only then can a robust code be developed.
But in case of India, the EC, though has adopted this technological tool, it’s shying away from robust testing and making this tool more transparent. Not only political parties, but the citizens of the country deserve a fair and transparent mechanism they can trust that their decision to vote for a safe future has been given the importance that it deserves.
Fresh from the success of their efforts to draw attention to their plight by filing bulk nominations from Nizamabad during Telangana elections, Turmeric farmers now plan to use the same strategy in Varanasi.
File Photo
178 farmers had filed nominations from Nizamabad to demand a higher price for turmeric and red jowar crops. Now led by the All India Tureric Farmers Association, farmers including women and members of Scheduled castes from Amoor, Balkonda and Nizamabad areas will leave for Varanasi on April 25. They will also be joined by farmers from Erode in Tamil Nadu.
Varanasi is the constituency of PM Narendra Modi. The farmers are enlisting the support of local Varanasi farmers to contest elections as well as donors to pay for deposits.
Association’s president PK Deivasigamani told Hindustan Times, “The farmers will be filing the papers on April 29. We are mobilising the support of local farmers for the nominations. Each contestant requires the signatures of at least 10 locals.”
There are also reports of a possible similar campaign in Wayanad from where Rahul Gandhi is contesting his second seat.
On Wednesday, April 24, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court refused to prevent Sadhvi Pragya Thakur from running in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, News18 reported. Judge VS Padalkar said, “In the ongoing elections, this court does not have any legal powers to prohibit anyone from contesting elections. It is job of electoral officers to decide. This court can’t stop the accused number 1 from contesting elections. This application is negated”.
During the hearing, per ANI, the lawyer for the intervenor contended that Thakur was not attending court proceedings on the grounds that she was unwell, but was campaigning for the election, during which she did not look ill. Per Scroll, Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had expressed a similar sentiment last week, saying “If her health is not good enough to stay in jail, how can she be fit enough to fight polls?” He had tweeted, “What a mockery of the legal system the BJP has made with its candidate for Indore! A person, an under-trial, who stands accused of terrorism; out on bail on health grounds but clearly healthy enough to fight elections in the crippling summer heat. Hindutva rules!”
The announcement of Thakur contesting the Lok Sabha elections from Bhopal has sparked controversy, first, because Thakur is an accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, and also given her multiple provocative remarks, first targeting slain ATS chief Hemant Karkare, and then about the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Following the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) announcement of her candidature, Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal, 59, of Malegaon, Nashik, filed an intervention application in the special NIA court in an effort to restrain Thakur from contesting in the election, Live Law reported on April 18. Bilal’s son, Sayyed Azhar Nisar Ahmed was killed in the September 2008 blast that occurred in Bhukku Chowk, Malegaon; it claimed at least six lives, and resulted in 101 people being wounded, Scroll reported. Per Live Law, Thakur has been charged under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Arms Act in the case.
In his application, Bilal contended that Thakur was granted bail under the pretext that is ill, and “a patient of breast cancer”; the application says that, in fact, Thakur has been taking part in multiple programmes and issuing “objectionable and instigating speeches” since she was released from prison, Live Law reported.
In her response to Bilal’s application, Thakur told the NIA court on Tuesday, April 23, that the pending trial “was no bar for her from contesting the election,” The Hindu reported, adding that Thakur argued that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not have a provision that prohibits a candidate with a criminal case against them from contesting elections. Thakur made note of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, under which she has submitted an affidavit detailing all pending cases against, and said, “Criminal jurisprudence clearly says that unless a person is convicted, he shall be deemed to be innocent,” The Hindu reported. Thakur also responded to Bilal’s “allegation about her non-attendance in court,” explaining that she was unwell, and underwent a surgery for breast cancer following her release on bail. She also “sought exemplary cost to be imposed upon the intervenor for filing a frivolous application, ‘taking liberty with the truth and abusing process of law,’” Live Law reported.
The NIA also filed its response on Tuesday, stating, “The NIA has no jurisdiction to say anything on this matter because the matter of contesting election is not related to this case. It is to be decided by the Election Commission only,” the Hindustan Times reported, adding that the NIA claimed that the subject of Thakur’s bail cancellation is pending with the Supreme Court. Per The Hindu, the agency’s reply also noted that it had issued Thakur a clean chit, and “had recommended in the 2016 chargesheet that there is no evidence to prosecute” her.
In the run-up to the general elections and with the growing threats on the freedom of speech and expression, artistes from film industry, theatre and the world of literature have been vociferously appealing to voters to exercise their democratic right with due deliberation. The latest to join in the appeal to save India from hate politics are 71 Bollywood actors, writers and musicians which include prominent names like actress Shabana Azmi, filmmaker Anand Patwardhan, actress Swara Bhaskar, musician Shubha Mudgal, filmmaker Anusha Khan among others.
In the appeal, the signatories have urged the voters to vote to defend the idea of India and save our Constitution.
The letter reads, “We appeal to all the people of India, our dear brothers and sisters, to use your power as citizens and as caring human beings to defend our Constitution, and nurture the very idea of India. Please, pause and think, before you vote.”
Though they haven’t directly targeted the current ruling dispensation, which is infamous for its divisive politics and politics of polarisation, they have expressed their concerns about the anti-democratic forces posing a threat on our founding principles of diversity, equality and the separation of religion from politics, in the current times.
Recently there was another appeal made by 600 artists in 12 languages from across the country to the voters to vote ‘bigotry, hatred and apathy out of power’. This included prominent names like Naseeruddin Shah, AnuragKashyap, RatnaPathak Shah, GirishKarnad, AmolPalekar, ShantaGokhale among others. Also, 107 artists from the Marathi creative industry appealed the public to consider the last five years before casting their votes. The signatories were national-award winning authors and literary writers such as writer BhalchandraNemade, playwright Mahesh Elkunchwar, film director ArunKhopkar among others. The right-wing supremacist Hindutva party BJP has had a flickering relationship with the creative industry. While politically motivated and controversial appointments of chairman, CBFC and Director, FTII antagonised the creative professionals, films like ‘PM NarendraModi’ held the PM in high regards.
The current government’s nasty strategy of labelling the dissenters as ‘anti-nationals’ or ‘Pro-Pakistan’ is not hidden anymore. Despite the threats of drawing the ire of ‘nationalists’, such valiant efforts by eminent personalities gives a ray of hope to save our democratic structure.
Copies of Closure Report and Witness Statements to be given in electronic form in two weeks
On April 23, a Delhi court ruled that Fatima Nafis is not only entitled to file a protest petition against the closure report in the investigation into her son Najeeb’s disappearance, but also to copies of the report, all related documents as well as statements of witnesses.
The court has directed the CBI to submit all this to the complainant in two weeks. Additionally the investigating officer has been directed to be present at the next hearing.
CJP stands in solidarity with Indian mothers demanding justice for their children. We salute the courage of Fatima Nafees, Radhika Vemula, Rupa Behn Modi and Asiya Begum.
The order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate says, “The law is settled that in case of closure/cancellation report, complainant is to be given opportunity to file protest petition, if so desired by the complainant.”
The order also states, “Further, there cannot be a half-hearted approach. In fact an effective opportunity be given to the complainant to file protest petition. As such, whole of the cancellation report along with the statement of witnesses and documents which are part and parcel of the present cancellation report, have to be supplied to the complainant side.”
The court has allowed the CBI to provide soft copies of the documents on a pen drive or CD. The entire order may be read here.
In passing the order the court relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in the Jakia Nasim Ahesan vs State of Gujarat. In that order the SC said, “that if for any stated reason the SIT opines in its report, to be submitted in terms of this order, that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding against any person named in the complaint, dated 8th June 2006, before taking a final decision on such ‘closure’ report, the Court shall issue notice to the complainant and make available to her copies of the statements of the witnesses, other related documents and the investigation report strictly in accordance with law as enunciated by this Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr.2. For the sake of ready reference, we may note that in the said decision, it has been held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code, decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.”
Brief background of the case
Najeeb was a pursuing a Master’s Degree in Biotechnology from New Delhi’s prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University. He was a sharp young man with what his mother hoped was a bright future. But one evening he ended up in a brawl with members of a student union affiliated with a prominent political party with an extreme right wing ideology. The very next day he went missing.
Najeeb’s friends suspected foul play and Fatima started demanding an explanation about what happened to her son. But nobody seemed to have any answers. The police couldn’t explain what happened. It was almost as if he vanished into thin air!
The case was then handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Security personnel near St Anthony’s Church Kochchikade in Colombo, Sri Lanka. April 22, 2019. EPA Images
The ban is ostensibly to stop the spread of misinformation – and the move feeds into the wider debate about how Facebook and other platforms are used to incite violence and spread hate speech. In Myanmar, for example, Facebook was heavily criticised for allowing groups to use its pages to incite violence against the Rohingya community. In New Zealand, it came under fire after it was used to live-stream the Christchurch massacre.
But in Sri Lanka, as in many other countries, Facebook and social media platforms generally have created a positive space for public conversation that did not exist before.
The country has a long history of censoring the press, by killing journalists, blocking websites and using draconian laws to fine and imprison reporters. The media that remained was divided by language and geography – there were no outlets used and trusted equally by the Sinhala-speaking majority in the south and west of the country and the Tamil speaking minority in the north and east.
Social media, therefore, became a way to share stories and comment on current affairs. This hasn’t always been positive – it has also been used to spread ethnic and religious chauvinism, echoing the language used by politicians and mainstream media over the decades. Nevertheless, it has been crucial for promoting intra-ethnic dialogue in Sri Lanka.
During, and indeed after, the country’s long civil war there have been few opportunities for young adults from different communities to talk to one other and exchange views. Facebook and Twitter were beginning to provide a space for this. Websites such as Groundviews also publish citizen journalism from across the island and have used social media to reach audiences within Sri Lanka and overseas.
In October 2018, for example, president Maithripala Sirisena sparked a constitutional crisis when he effectively tried to overturn the results of a recent election, and replace the sitting prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, with former president Mahinda Rajapakse. As Rajapakse’s supporters seized control of the country’s state media, journalists instead took to Twitter to document what was going on.
This attempted constitutional coup only ended after street protests by citizens, and strong opposition from parliamentarians. Both groups used Facebook to organise and mobilise themselves – and a parliamentary brawl, during which Rajapaksa’s supporters attacked the speaker, was broadcast on YouTube.
Sirisena re-instituted Wickremasinghe as prime minister after a seven week standoff, but the two men have an uneasy and often dysfunctional political relationship.
Intelligence failures
Easter Sunday’s terror attacks have raised a whole new set of questions, about intelligence failures and party politics. In particular, the prime minister told reporters that his cabinet did not receive intelligence reports almost two weeks ago about a possible attack, mainly because the prime minister and his cabinet were not invited to national security council meetings that are led by the president. Wickremsinghe has now ordered an inquiry into this.
Grieving relatives wait to receive the bodies of family members, who were killed in a series of blasts in Sri Lanka. April 22, 2019. EPA Images
This is the second time the government has shut down social media. It first did so earlier this year after a wave of anti-Muslim riots but has done little since to improve relations between the country’s various groups.
There is also little evidence that the shutdown was effective, not least because determined groups can set up virtual private networks (VPNs) which allow them to bypass the restrictions, and find other ways to spread their message.
A study on the impact of internet shutdowns in India also showed that information blackouts can even lead to a spike in violent protests, as those who would otherwise organise non-violent protests find themselves unable to mobilise peacefully.
Sri Lanka is also about to pass a new anti-terror bill – the Counter Terrorism Act. It is meant to replace the current draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was used during the civil war, with one more that is more in line with international norms. But civil rights groups, including Amnesty International, point out that the new act still allows for the bulk interception and decryption of electronic communication, and permits senior police officers to place arbitrary restrictions on free movement.
The biggest division in the country is a linguistic one between the Sinhalese, who are mainly Buddhist, and the Tamils, who are mainly Hindu. Muslims and Christians can speak either or both languages. The various groups have a long history of conflict and it is difficult to create a simple narrative of villains and victims. Nevertheless, social media offered a way for the various communities to build bridges between one another.
By shutting down social media, leaving its citizens reliant on state messaging and a weak and beaten down form of journalism, the government now risks preventing Sri Lankans from finding out the truth about what is happening in their fragile and delicately balanced country. And that can only lead to suspicion and division, presumably the very thing the perpetrators of the Easter Sunday atrocity wanted.
“The role of judicial review is to ensure that the rule of law is observed,” stated the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment, which makes path-breaking observations that uphold both the rule of the law and the importance of environment impact assessments (EIA).
Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud’s judgment dated March 29, 2019, also emphasised the need for disclosure as a critical basis for project appraisals.
This came in a case against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) judgment, which had dismissed an appeal against environment clearance granted to the Mopa Airport in Goa.
It is now listed before the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change on April 23, for a review based on the apex court’s directions.
The environment clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change in 2015 is problematic on various grounds. This includes serious concealment of information, which could have had a material impact on how the project was appraised.
This concealment includes failure to disclose that as many as 54,676 trees will be felled for the project and the fact that there are ecologically sensitive areas within a 10-km radius of the project.
Critical submissions and arguments made at the time of the public hearing were never documented and presented before the concerned appraisal committee. In fact, these objections were only selectively presented before the committee as being only that of employment.
Upholding all the above allegations made by the petitioners, the apex court concluded that “neither the process of decision making nor the decision itself can pass legal muster” in the processing and grant of Mopa Airport’s environment clearance.
The judgment also clearly articulates that it is the duty of a project proponent to make a full and complete disclosure of the environmental impacts.
One of the reasons cited by the EAC to recommend approval to Mopa Airport was “peculiar circumstances of the case.” The Supreme Court judgment took serious note of this to say that such statements make for pure guess work.
The judgment comes down heavily on the EAC to say that as an expert body, it should have applied every relevant aspect of the project, which has a bearing upon the environment. It should not work on surmise that assumes something to be true without having evidence for it.
When the review was presented before the Supreme Court, the respondents, state of Goa, first questioned the bonafides of the petitioners:
Federation of Rainbow Warriors and Hanuman Laxman Aroskar. In this judgment, the court also specifically clarified that this was a non-issue. The court’s observation that, “Vague aspersions on the intention of public-spirited individuals does not constitute an adequate response to those interested in the protection of the environment”, can go a long way in figuring out how questions of locus standi are decided in environment and public interest matters.
Even though the final decision in this case is yet to the administered, the directions may appear to fall short of upholding the rule of law, as firmly emphasised by the judgment itself.
These directions draw upon two significant judgments of the National Green Tribunal. These are Save Mon Region Federation vs Union of India related to the Nyamjanchu Hydro Electric Project in Arunachal Pradesh and Shreeranganathan K P v Union of India, where the approval for KGS Aranmula International Airport Project in Kerala was challenged.
In both these cases the NGT had in effect suspended or revoked the approvals of the projects, as clearances based on concealed data and incomplete information.
In the present case, the court has sent back the Mopa Airport to the same appraisal that was responsible for a faulty decision. The Expert Appraisal Committee will review the project with no fresh assessments or public hearings that were compromised in the first round. The environment clearance is suspended till the review by the environment ministry.
If the EAC and the ministry approve the project, they will need to do so with additional safeguards. The EAC’s report would then need to be filed before the Supreme Court, and no other court “shall entertain any challenge” to this report.
By doing this, the apex court has ensured that it has direct scrutiny over the merits of the approval by the environment ministry.
The strong observations of Justice Chandrachud’s judgment, legal precedence set by NGT judgments and the reading of EIA notification’s clause 8 (vi) make projects where deliberate concealment is proven, liable for cancellation or rejection.
In holding back this conclusion the apex court has put the ball back in the environment ministry’s court for now.
The EAC has an important responsibility to review the project, bearing in mind all the illegalities that have been upheld in the judgment, and they are to do it in a transparent manner.
If the environment clearance is cancelled, the project proponents always have the right to re-initiate fresh proceedings under the EIA notification, 2006.
But all that would only matter, if rule of law rather than “peculiar circumstances” were the basis of any upcoming decision.
