The single judge bench of Justice Sandeep Marne at the Bombay High Court has issued notice to Shiv Sena’s returned candidate Ravindra Waikar on July 29 while hearing a plea seeking declaration of his election as a Returned Candidate to Mumbai North West Lok Sabha constituency as “void”. The response to the notice has been made returnable on September 2. The petition was filed by Shiv Sena – Uddhav Bal Thackeray (UBT) candidate Amol Kirtikar, who lost by a narrow margin of 48 votes in the seat, and sought setting aside of Waikar’s victory and asked the court to declare himself a winner to the seat. The petition maintained that while Kirtikar was leading in the seat with 1 vote more than Waikar after the counting of EVM votes, the contested counting of Tendered Votes and Postal Ballot Votes resulted in Waikar taking over the lead with 48 votes in the end.

Notably, Kirtikar asserted in the petition that as per his election agents he was leading by over 650 votes at the conclusion of EVM vote count, however, the Returning Officer (RO) announced that he was only 1 vote ahead in terms of EVM votes at the end of all 26 rounds, based on the entries made in Form 20. He alleged that their requests for recount was rejected by the RO.

The plea raised several issues with regard to the conduct of elections and particularly the counting of votes by the Returning Officer (RO) and alleged violation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and guidelines issued under the Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023.

The petition highlighted the following concerns and violations of the statutory laws:

1. Kirtikar alleged that his counting agents were not permitted to sit at the ARO / RO Table, despite being a statutory requirement under the RPA.
2. Form 17-C (Part II), which records total votes received by each candidate, was not given to his agents in any of the 563 polling booths of 2 Assembly Segments (158 – Jogeshwari and 164 – Versova) and 276 polling booths of another Assembly Segment (163 – Goregaon).
3. No reasonable opportunity was provided to make an application requesting re-count of votes and the RO turned down the written request subsequently made.
4. Unauthorized usage of mobile phone inside the counting area, including by the RO, in violation of the RPA and the RO Handbook.
5. Impersonation of electors resulting in 333 votes being cast as ‘Tendered Votes’ which went uncounted.
6. Discrepancy in the number of ‘Tendered Votes’ recorded in ‘Form 17-C (Part – I) – Account of Votes Recorded’ by the Presiding Officer and ‘Form 20 – Part – II – Final Result Sheet’ recorded by the Returning Officer.

Furthermore, Kirtikar pointed out in the petition that even after several representations were made to the Returning Officer and the District Election Officer (DEO) seeking supply of CCTV recording of the entire counting process, the same was rejected by the DEO in violation of “Clause 19.10 of the 2023 Handbook which unambiguously states that copies of the said video recordings shall be provided upon payment of fees.”

In particular, with regard to the irregularities in the counting of votes, the plea claimed that the “process of counting, announcement and screen display was done up to the 19th round. Thereafter, from the 20th to 25th rounds, the votes were not announced or displayed and nearing the end of the counting, the votes in respect of 20th to 26th rounds came to be announced.” Kirtikar also maintained that CCTV recording would reveal that between 19^th and 26^th rounds, the RO “continuously” walked off stage and “seemed to be continuously interacting on her mobile phone” in violation of the provisions of the RPA and Election Handbook for the Returning Officer, 2023. Additionally, the plea further maintained that one of the ENCORE operators had lent his mobile phone to one Mr. Mangesh Padilkar, who happens to be a relative of the Returned Candidate, “and the latter in turn was using the same illegally at the counting place”, following which the FIR was registered against Padilkar.

On the issue of discrepancy in account of Tendered Votes, the petition claimed that as per Form 17-C (Part-1) there are 333 Tendered Votes, however, in Form 20, “which is supposed to record the number of ‘tendered votes’ based on Form 17-C (Part I)”, only 213 Tendered Votes are recorded. It said that in the past, Tendered Votes have been counted in similar circumstances and “the non-counting of such votes has materially affected the result of the election.”

Based on these allegations, Kirtikar has asked the Bombay High Court to declare the election of Waikar as a Returned Candidate to be void “under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951” and declare the petitioner instead as the winner “in terms of Section 84 r/w Section 101(a) of the R.P. Act, 1951”.

Related:

M’tra: Shiv Sena UBT’s Amol Kirtikar from Mumbai NW alleges election manipulation, files complaint with CEC, SEC | SabrangIndia

FIR filed against relative of winning candidate in mumbai north west election over alleged protocol breach | SabrangIndia

How vote splitting by VBA shapes Maharashtra election outcomes 

The post Bombay HC issues summons to Shiv Sena’s Ravindra Waikar on the petition filed by Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Amol Kirtikar challenging the former’s victory from Mumbai North West Lok Sabha seat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He has further stated that there is reason to believe that there has also been tampering with the Electronic Voting Machines. The successful candidate Mr. Ravindra Waikar has polled 4,52,644 votes and Kirtikar polled 4,52,596 votes. He is therefore at Serial No. 2, i.e. immediately behind the candidate declared winner. Kirtikar is also in the process of challenging the aforesaid election in Court.

Significantly, in this communication he has drawn attention to Paragraph 76 of the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Association for Democratic Reforms VS Election Commission of India and Ors.  Copy of which is enclosed herewith. Paragraphs 76 (a) and 76 (b) of the said judgement are reproduced as under:-

76. Nevertheless, not because we have any doubt, but to only further strengthen the integrity of the election process, we are inclined to issue the following directions:

(a) On completion of the symbol loading process in the VVPATs undertaken on or after 01.05.2024, the symbol loading units shall be sealed and secured in a container. The candidates or their representatives shall sign the seal. The sealed containers, containing the symbol loading units, shall be kept in the strong room along with the EVMs at least for a period of 45 days post the declaration of results. They shall be opened, examined and dealt with as in the case of EVMs.

(b) The burnt memory/microcontroller in 5% of the EVMs, that is, the control unit, ballot unit and the VVPAT, per assembly constituency/assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency shall be checked and verified by the team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVMs, post the announcement of the results, for any tampering or modification, on a written request made by candidates who are at SI.No.2 or Sl.No.3, behind the highest polled candidate. Such candidates or their representatives shall identify the EVMs by the polling station or serial number. All the candidates and their representatives shall have an option to remain present at the time of verification. Such a request should be made within a period of 7 days from the date of declaration of the result.

Kirtikar has therefore exercised his right towards “checking and verification of the burnt memory/microcontroller i.e. the control unit, ballot unit, the VVPAT, the microprocessor and the software loading unit by the team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVMs.” He has also state dearly that he would like to remain present at the time of the aforesaid checking/verification.  Therefore, he has required adequate written notice in order to enable me or my representative to be physically present when the said checking/verification is scheduled to take place.

Most significantly, and this is crucial to transparency activists and election watchers concerned that the election process is free and fair, Amol Kirtikar has also requested for a copy of the Technical SOPs issued by the Election Commission of India pursuant to specific directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26 April 2024.

Whilst he and his team have accessed the Administrative SOP, the Technical SOP guaranteeing the integrity of the SLU (symbol loading unit) and microprocessor is not accessible on the ECI Website.  It is this SOP that will ensure and guarantee due observance of directives of the Supreme Court of India.  Interestingly, one of these Administrative SOPs was issued on April 29, 2024 after the first two phases of polling had already taken place, the second one is dated June 1, 2024 i.e. the last phase of polling.

Experts have told Sabrang India that the Administrative SOPs issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) pursuant to extremely critical and contested proceedings before the Supreme Court of India (SCI) in no way strictly ensure that the storage of these units will be safe and secure. This issue could also be a matter of serious challenge in the near future.

Kirtikar has lodged a complaint on several counts even on the day of counting itself, i.e. June 4, 2024 and these issues will be subject matter of the election petition that is required to be filed within 45 days.

Meanwhile media reports on June 10 that the Vanrai police are investigating allegations from losing candidate Amol Kirtikar that man close to his rival might be involved in foul play. A  “mysterious mobile phone” found on vote-counting day at the NESCO centre has kicked up a controversy, with the Shiv Sena (UBT) candidate, Amol Kirtikar, who lost by only 48 votes, accusing his rival, Shiv Sena MLA Ravindra Waikar, of manipulating poll results. An ECI staffer found in possession of the device, banned inside counting centres, is under scrutiny while police are scrutinising the phone’s call records.

Waikar won the hotly contested Mumbai North West seat by a mere 48 votes. According to Kirtikar, the voting was stopped by a representative inside the NESCO centre between 3.30 pm and 5.30 pm when he was leading by 651 votes. He alleged that the results were unaccountably then declared, stating that he had lost the contest by 48 votes.

SOP dated April 29, 2024

ECI SOP dated June 1, 2024

Supreme Court Judgement dated April 26, 2024

Insert Kirtikar’s letter to the Election Commission of India, demanding a probe into mysterious presence in the booth

Related:

My June 4 Story: The Day Results to the 2024 Elections came in

How vote splitting by VBA shapes Maharashtra election outcomes

Unboxing the Inbox: Decoding the “Viksit Bharat Sampark” Controversy and its Shadow over Indian Elections

Rising tide of hate speech marks India’s general assembly election campaigns

The post M’tra: Shiv Sena UBT’s Amol Kirtikar from Mumbai NW alleges election manipulation, files complaint with CEC, SEC appeared first on SabrangIndia.