In response to the growing concerns about the integrity of India’s 2024 General Election (GE), the IPMIE constituted an independent panel to monitor and observe the General Election 2024.

IPMIE stated in its statement that we set out to monitor all aspects of the election process, with the goal of ensuring transparency and fairness. During the GE period, IPMIE published weekly bulletins and three in-depth reports documenting violations of electoral integrity.

IPMIE stated that during the election, we observed and highlighted several violations of electoral integrity with the Election Commission of India (ECI). In our final briefing paper i.e. “Electoral Integrity in India an Agenda for Change: Learnings from the 2024 General Election”, we reflect on those violations, namely;

”1. Electoral procedure and alleged infractions in vote counting. The absence of adequate cross-verification between EVMs and VVPATs – the insistence on non-counting of VVPATs by design – may have facilitated large-scale, spurious injections of votes during each of the seven phases of voting. After analysing discrepancies between provisional and final vote tallies released by the ECI, experts alleged that elections may have been ‘stolen’ in as many as 79 parliamentary constituencies. Several reported instances from across the country of bogus voting and other voting day infractions, as well as widespread complaints of manipulation and other malpractices by ECI officials lent credence to these concerns.

2. Voting registration and allegations of voter exclusion and suppression: State-led voter suppression measures were reported from Gujarat (where hundreds of Muslim fishermen were reportedly struck off from voter rolls), Uttar Pradesh (where dozens of voters in Muslim- concentration villages were reportedly physically assaulted and restrained from voting by policemen), Jammu & Kashmir (where policemen detained party workers and activists unlawfully) and Assam, where around 100,000 residents had in the past been designated as ‘doubtful voters’ by the ECI.

3. Party financing and abuse of state agencies to deny level playing field: Data relating to electoral bonds appeared to confirm the BJP’s near-monopoly over political financing. There was also evidence to suggest that the BJP may have been involved in quid pro quo relationships with corporate donors, many of whom had secured lucrative government contracts, subsidies, and other forms of government support. Ahead of and during the GE period, central government agencies were systematically mobilised to target key parties and leaders of the INDIA bloc of opposition parties.

4. Sectarian rhetoric and media coverage: Throughout the election period, the BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, engaged in sectarian rhetoric on a hitherto unprecedented scale. At least 287 instances of hate speeches (including 61 by Modi) have been documented. The BJP’s core narrative demonised Muslims (who were referred to as ‘infiltrators’ and ‘jihadis’, among other dehumanising terms). Television broadcast networks continued to be highly partisan in favour of the BJP, and ‘shadow advertisers’ pushing a coordinated disinformation campaign on social media networks, seemingly on behalf of the BJP.

5. Electoral authority: The ECI appeared largely to act like an arm of the government, refusing to take decisive action against violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and of electoral laws by ruling party members. The ECI’s conduct throughout the election process reflected a systematic abdication of its constitutional obligation to conduct free and fair elections. Efforts by opposition parties, election watch bodies and citizens groups, as well as by us as independent experts, to address the many concerns to ECI, went largely unheeded.

6. Lack of electoral redress: The performance of India’s higher judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court (SC), during the 2024 GE was mixed. While it outlawed electoral bonds in February 2024 and ensured the release of related data, its response to petitions seeking remedies related to various electoral integrity weaknesses – including the new appointments procedure to the ECI, weaknesses in the EVM-VVPAT system, communal campaigning by BJP leaders, and the ECI’s delay in publishing voter turnout data – was inadequate.’

Raising concern over the Lok Sabha Election 2024 and on the basis of recommendations, IPMIE urged Indian Authorities to implement the following recommendations:

“1. Amend electoral laws, including sections of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act and the Model Code of Conduct to strengthen the independence of the Election Commission of India and empower it, prevent gerrymandering in future delimitation processes, allow judicial review of election-related decisions, ensure the public disclosure of all financial contributions received by political parties, and root out corruption.

2. Strengthen Electoral processes to ensure the voting process is verifiable and transparent, that civil society has a role in revising and updating draft electoral rolls, and that data pertaining to EVMs and the election overall is made available in real-time.

3. Ensure the Election Commission of India is brought under the direct oversight of Parliament, that its appointment procedures are revised to guarantee cross-party inclusion, and that it is granted enhanced powers to proactively regulate political parties and to impose stricter election- time penalties for violations of the MCC.”

However, in February 2024, a group of experts from diverse disciplines, from multinational backgrounds, all with pride and admiration in the promise that India holds for inclusive democracy – constituted the Independent Panel for Monitoring Indian Elections (IPMIE), 2024, to observe and report on General Election 2024, as independent civil society monitors. The members of the Panel are, Prof. Neera Chandhoke, Distinguished Honorary Fellow, Centre for Equity Studies, and retd. Professor, Delhi University, India, Dr. Thomas Daffern, Philosopher and historian; chairman of World Intellectuals Wisdom Forum; Director, International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (France and UK); Convenor, Commonwealth Interfaith Network, Mr. Sakhawat Hossain, former Election Commissioner of Bangladesh, Dr. Harish Karnick, former Professor, IIT, Kanpur, India, Dr. Sebastian Morris, former Professor, IIM, Ahmedabad, India and, Prof. Rahul Mukherji, Professor & Chair, Modern Politics of South Asia, South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University, Germany

The Press Statement of IPMIE can be read here:

The Full Report can be read here:

The post IPMIE released “Electoral Integrity in India an Agenda for Change: Learnings from the 2024 General Election” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A primary challenge in conducting accurate exit polls in India is the country’s vast and diverse electorate. With over a billion people from numerous castes, religions, languages, and regional identities, it is immensely difficult to capture a representative sample that accurately reflects the entire population’s voting behaviour. This complexity often results in skewed samples and inaccurate predictions.

Exit polls in India face several methodological challenges. Pollsters must ensure that their sample of respondents is truly representative, balancing factors like urban-rural divides, literacy levels, and socio-economic statuses. Logistical issues such as accessing remote areas and ensuring the safety of pollsters can also introduce biases in data collection, further distorting the results.

Indian voters often exhibit reluctance in revealing their true voting preferences, a phenomenon known as the “shy voter” effect. Cultural norms, fear of political retribution, or a desire to maintain privacy can lead voters to provide false or misleading information to pollsters. This tendency significantly distorts the data collected during exit polls.

The strategic nature of voting in India complicates the accuracy of exit polls. Voters may change their preferences at the last minute based on various factors, including candidate performance, local developments, or last-minute campaign efforts. Additionally, tactical voting—where voters choose a candidate not because they prefer them, but to prevent another candidate from winning—can further complicate predictions. Exit polls, conducted immediately after voting, may not fully capture these dynamics.

The historical performance of political parties and media influence can impact the reliability of exit polls. Media narratives and pre-poll surveys can create biases, influencing voters’ responses during exit polls. Exit pollsters may also be subconsciously influenced by historical trends, leading to biased predictions that favour the ruling party. This bias can create self-fulfilling prophecies, further eroding the accuracy of exit polls.

Let’s examine some notable examples where Indian exit polls failed to match the actual election results:

1. 2004 General Elections: This election stands as one of the most prominent examples of exit poll failure. Most exit polls predicted a comfortable victory for the incumbent BJP-led NDA. However, the Congress-led UPA emerged victorious, securing 218 seats compared to the NDA’s 181. This unexpected outcome highlighted the limitations and biases of exit polls.
2. 2. 2015 Bihar Assembly Elections: Exit polls were split, with some predicting a win for the BJP and its allies, while others foresaw a victory for the Grand Alliance (RJD, JD(U), and Congress). The actual results showed a decisive win for the Grand Alliance, which secured 178 out of 243 seats, contrary to many predictions.
3. 3. 2017 Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections: While most exit polls predicted a BJP victory, the extent of the win was grossly underestimated. The BJP won 312 out of 403 seats, a significantly higher number than what most exit polls had suggested.
4. 2019 General Elections: Despite most exit polls predicting a BJP-led NDA victory, the actual results showed an even more decisive win, with the NDA securing 353 seats. The magnitude of the BJP’s victory was again underestimated by many exit polls.
5. 5. West Bengal Assembly Elections 2021: Many exit polls predicted a close contest between the BJP and the ruling TMC. However, the final results showed a sweeping victory for the TMC, which secured 213 out of 294 seats, while the BJP managed only 77 seats. The exit polls failed to capture the TMC’s strong hold on the state.
6. Delhi Assembly Elections 2015 and 2020: In 2015, most exit polls underestimated the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)’s performance, predicting a hung assembly or a slim majority. The AAP ended up winning 67 out of 70 seats. Similarly, in 2020, exit polls predicted a win for AAP, but the actual results were even more lopsided, with AAP winning 62 out of 70 seats, far exceeding the predictions.

The frequent failure of Indian exit polls to predict actual election results highlights the inherent challenges in capturing the voting behaviour of such a diverse and complex electorate. Methodological flaws, voter reluctance, strategic voting, and media biases all contribute to the inaccuracies, often skewing results in favour of the ruling party. As India continues to evolve, so too must the methods used to understand its electorate. Until then, exit polls will remain an intriguing, albeit unreliable, part of the electoral landscape.

Nadeem Khan is a Social Activist associated with Spect Foundation

The post Why Indian exit polls are often biased and favour the ruling party appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It took the Election Commission of India (ECI) 11 days to release the polling data on its website for the first phase of the ongoing Lok Sabha election 2024, the voting for which concluded on April 19. Similarly, it took 4 days for the Commission to upload the voter turnout data for the second phase, which concluded on April 26. The ECI uploaded the voter turnout data on April 30 for both the first and second phases of elections on its website, drawing criticism from the opposition parties over the delay. The parties also questioned the ECI over wide discrepancy between the tentative estimated data and the subsequent increase in total voting percentage.  ECI had tentatively estimated that around 60% of the registered voters had casted their votes in the first and second phases of the election as on 7PM at the end of the polling on April 19 and April 26 respectively. In the final data that it uploaded on April 30, the figures touched 66.14% and 66.71% respectively, an increase of almost 6%.

Parties have also noted that the data released does not mention total number of votes cast in each Parliamentary Constituency and Assembly Segment, as recorded in Form 17C under Rule 49S of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Importantly, true copy of Form 17C is provided to every candidate through their polling agent at the close of the poll. On May 7, the ECI uploaded the tentative voter turnout data for the third phase of the election, noting that the Commission has “recorded an approximate voter turnout of 64.4% as of 11:40 pm”. Interestingly, it released another press note on the next day, in which the ECI said that “The updated approximate voter turnout figures for polling in third phase of General Elections stands at 65.68% at 10 pm on 08.05.2024”.

The representative copy of the Form 17C can be found here:

In a letter sent to INDIA block alliance partners, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge wrote that “On earlier occasions, the Commission has published voter turnout data within 24 hours of polling. What has changed this time? Why has the Commission failed to issue any clarification to justify the delay, despite being repeatedly questioned by political parties and political activists?” He also expressed his concern over the polling data for the third phase of the election, saying, “it is extremely disconcerting to know, through various media reports, that even the final registered voters’ list from the third phase onwards is also not released. All these developments cast a dark shadow on the functioning of the Election Commission of India.”

CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury also sent a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner of the ECI, Rajiv Kumar,  in which he said, “Unfortunately, the ECI has not come out with any explanation for the cause of this undue delay. What goes unanswered is also a surge of 6 per cent from the initial figures that the ECI put out and the final figure. While it is plausible that there may be a slight variation between the initial and the final figures, this variation of six percent is unusual and raises some suspicion. Also, while the percentages have been disclosed, the voting figures (number of votes polled) have not yet been provided.

Furthermore, the analysis of the ECI website reveals that the notices sent by the ECI to the political leaders and parties for the violations of the MCC are only available till November 13, 2023, and details prior to that period under “Current Issues” is unavailable.

ADR moves Supreme Court to direct immediate disclosure of the poll data

On May 10, 2024, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) filed an interlocutory application (IA) as part of the writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 1382 of 2019) in the Supreme Court (SC) asking the court to issue direction to the ECI to immediately disclose the absolute numbers of votes polled in the ongoing Lok Sabha election, LiveLaw reported. The interlocutory application demands that “In order to uphold the voter’s confidence it is necessary that the ECI be directed to disclose on its website scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part- I (Account of Votes Recorded) of all polling stations which contains the authenticated figures for votes polled, within 48 hours of the close of polling.” In addition, the application also asks ECI to provide “… a tabulation of constituency-wise figures of voter turnout in absolute numbers in the on-going 2024 Lok Sabha election” (ibid.). Furthermore, it calls for ECI to upload on its website “scanned legible copies of Form 17C Part- II which contains the candidate-wise Result of Counting after the compilation of results of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.”

Election Commission responds to INC charge on voter turnout data

The EC has rebutted the allegations put forth by the INC president Mallikarjun Kharge regarding the discrepancy in voter turnout data and the delay in the release of the updated polling data. The Election Commission hit back at the Congress noting that the “it is discernable that under the guise of need to seek clarifications from the Election Commission of India, in effect, you have articulated statements which are actually verifiable and thus within knowledge to be incorrect, aimed at pushing a biased narrative…”.

ECI provided a point-to-point rebuttal of the allegations, the details for which is provided below as quoted from the ECI response:

1. Question 1: On 30th April 2024, the Election Commission released the final voter turnout data for the first 2 phases of elections for the 2024 Lok Sabha. The data was released 11 days after the first phase of polling (19th April 2024) and 4 days after the Second Phase (26th April ‘2024). In this regard our first question for the Election Commission is – Why did the Commission delay the release of voter turnout data?

Question 2: On earlier occasions the Commission has published voter turnout data within 24 hours of polling. What has changed this time? Why has the Commission failed to issue any clarification to justify the delay, despite being repeatedly questioned by political parties as well as political activists? Is there an issue with the EVMs?

ECI Response: “It is incorrect assertion about any delay and denied upfront. The Commission…to facilitate public at large, has created “Voter Turnout App” which is available in public domain for anybody to download where voter turnout of every PC (to the level of assembly segments/constituency), every State and every Phase of election are displayed live. The “Voter Turnout App” displays estimated approximate voter turnout on poll day every two hours (9:30 am, 11:30 am, 1:30 pm, 3:30 pm, 5:30 pm), then it displays live updation of estimated approximate voter turnout from 7:00 pm onwards till mid-night, as further reports are received from the field. Thus, there is no delay in publication of data for a constituency or a State on voter turnout application. Issuance of press note on 30th April 2024 was nothing but presenting the data already displayed and available in App live. It is thus not a delay.”

2. Question 3 and 4: Why was there a delay and wide discrepancy between the reported turnout of 60% at 7PM for the first two phases of the election cycle and the updated final turnout figure of close to 65-66% for the same phases?

ECI Response: “The facts presented are denied as incorrect and false. Assembly segment wise, PC wise and State/UT wise voter turnout data is available during all the three phases at Voter Turnout App continuously. Newspapers have actually reported turnout as per updation on the App. As a sample, newspaper cuttings of Times of India are at Annexure 3. for Phase- 1 (20th April) and at Annexure 4 for Phase-2 (27th April 2024) reporting voter turnout figure as 64% and 64.7% respectively.”

“Voter turnout data will definitely increase from 7 pm data due to following reasons:

• There is always time lag in reporting of estimated data on poll day
• Voters continue to vote even after 6:00 pm in long queue at many polling stations and can be verified by actual close of poll time recorded.
• As polling parties arrive late night and report, data gets updated with actual numbers from Form 17C, replacing estimated voter turnout recorded on poll day, on P+1 day after scrutiny conducted in presence of candidates and observers, and even P+2 or P+3 day due to difficult geography and weather conditions.
• Repoll data gets updated on conclusion of repoll, if ”

3. Question 5: Apart from the delay, the voter turnout data released by the Commission does not mention crucial yet related figures, such as the votes polled in each Parliamentary Constituency and in the respective Assembly Constituencies? If the voter turnout data was published within 24 hours of voting along with the crucial figures, then we would have known if the increase (of -5%) had been witnessed across constituencies? Or only in constituencies where the ruling regime had not performed well in the 2019 elections?

ECI Response: “The premise that there was an increase of 5 % is incorrect as stated in answer to Question 3-4. The PC wise data was available on Voter turnout App from poll day onwards. Uptick in voter turnout data is, hence, not malicious as being alleged but part of the standard operating procedure and has always been so as in Table at Annexure I. This is completely baseless allegation.” “Moreover, since the data is now available even through press note, you may proceed to do analysis constituency wise to find out correlations as alleged.”

4. Question 6: Is it not true that, according to some media reports, the final registered voters list of the next phases has not been made public? Will the EC/ be made answerable for this glaring mismanagement in basics in conducting the elections?

ECI Response: “Electoral roll is prepared for a constituency. Electoral roll of a PC is aggregate of electoral roll of assembly constituencies contained in a PC, according to the delimitation order. Electoral roll for each constituency is provided to recognized political parties free of cost…The exact data of elector, votes polled is available with each candidate as per detailed statutory/ Regulatory framework envisaging involvement of political parties/ Candidates to know data about electors and voters during electoral cycle given in Annexure 5”. “There is no legal provision or system to share any aggregate data of electors by the Commission. However, the Commission has already released phase wise elector data through the press note and will continue to provide phase wise elector data for public at large for every phase.”

The copy of the ECI response can be found here:

Related:

How safe is my vote? A detailed look back at the EVM-VVPAT controversy in India

VVPAT-EVM Verification: SC issues directions for fool-proofing EVM, sealing of EVMs & SLUs enabling runner-up candidate verification

Is the Indian EVM & VVPAT System free, fair, fit for elections or can it be manipulated?

The post ECI faces ire over lack of transparency and discrepancy in poll data, the poll body dismisses the allegations in a detailed response appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This is not an isolated incident. Farmers have been expressing their dissatisfaction through demonstration, public meetings, and gheraos with the current government across states as polling dates arrive. Several organisations related to the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) have organised protests and expressions of resentment against BJP candidates during the campaign in Punjab. Haryana and Rajasthan have seen similar receptions.

“The poll outcome will this time show the impact of the farmers’ protest and the extent of disenchantment,” general secretary of the BKU told Sabrangindia. “So far there was cynicism in this regard, wait for the 2024 results,” he added.

Could this impact the BJP in the coming polls? Let’s have a look.

Ten farmers died in the ‘Delhi Chalo’ farmer’s protests of 2024. According to the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, over 700 farmers died in the 2020-2021 farmers protests against farm laws. Besides, in official data provided by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), one farmer or agricultural labourer dies by suicide every hour in India, with the deaths of labourers being higher than the cultivating farmers. All this points to the picture that clearly, all is not not well.

India is an agrarian state. According to data from the Press Information Bureau (PIB), rural areas in India accommodate a substantial 65% of the population, with 47% relying on agriculture for their livelihoods. Furthermore, a recent survey by the International Labour Organisation has revealed that over the past few years more people have been pushed into becoming agriculture labourers, indicating that there has been a reverse flow.

Understanding this, history has shown us that the government has been instrumental in shaping agriculture because India’s agricultural growth was propelled by public sector investments, particularly during the Green Revolution era, which significantly boosted production and productivity through state-led interventions in technology, pricing, credit, and marketing. However, since the 1990s, there has been a noticeable retreat of the State from these crucial areas as per research conducted by Foundation for Agrarian Studies. The study indicates that there has been a sharp decline in public expenditure on agriculture over the past two decades (2010-11 to 2019-20). According to FAS, economics Professor Ramakumar Rao has stated that India’s overall public spending in this sector has now become alarmingly low even when compared to developing nations and not just developed nations. Due to this he says there is an urgent need for increased investment to support agricultural sustainability and rural well-being.

Farmers’ discontent with the ruling government may not have made the news an electoral factor but if we look at the past trends and patterns we can see that it has emerged as a critical factor shaping the political landscape ahead of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.  This discontent has resonated deeply in rural areas, where agriculture forms the backbone of livelihoods and communities. This has heightened the chance of potentially reshaping voter sentiment and posing a substantial challenge to the electoral prospects of the BJP.

As elections approach, we know that farmers in India have resumed protests along the borders of Punjab and Haryana since February 2024. They returned to protests with their old demand for a law guaranteeing Minimum Support Price (MSP). Essentially Minimum Support Prices (MSPs) are the prices set by the central government for buying food grains from farmers. These prices are established to ensure that farmers receive fair compensation for their produce. So even though the demand for a law on MSP was promised by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government during the Farmers’ Protest of 2020-2021, which led farmers to close down their year-long demonstrations. However, the promised legislation never materialised which led to the second round of protests two years later this year. Will this affect polling results? Many say yes.

Phases 1 and 2 of polling have already been concluded for India’s 18^th Lok Sabha elections.  Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, amongst other states, have already begun with two rounds of polling. Haryana and Punjab will however both see voting on a a single round (the 6^th and 7^th rounds) of polling on May 25 and June 1 respectively.

First, let’s take a look at whether there was any impact on BJP votes after the 2020-2021 farmers protests which ended in December, 2021, before crucial state assembly elections were to take place in 2022. In 2022, Punjab saw BJP winning only 2 seats in total. The Aam Aadmi Party won about 92 seats and made Bhagwant Mann the chief minister. The people had declared their mandate.

However, according to an analysis in Mint, farmer disaffection did not reflect in reduced state assembly seats for the BJP all over Uttar Pradesh in 2022. The UP assembly elections saw districts, with a considerable population of Jats, elect BJP, leading the party to win four of the six seats in Muzaffarnagar.  However in the same state elections, the BJP had, in 2022, suffered a grand defeat by losing 13 of the 19 assembly seats in the four districts  of UP, including Muzaffarnagar, Meerut, Shamli and Baghpat. As analysed by Yogendra Yadav, it is on these seats that the farmers protests (from the Ghazipur morcha in the 2020-2021 farmers protests) made maximum impact.

Over the past two years now, consistent news reports have since reported the community’s dissatisfaction with the ruling party. Farmers issues, the attack on the constitution and the Modi government’s callous non-response to women wrestlers, a leader at a meeting in Ghaziabad called for support to the INDIA alliance just a few days ago.

Rajasthan is also seeing such similar anti-BJP sentiment within the Jat community. The Modi wave, according to this Indian Express article, has wavered in the Shekhawati region of the state where Jats are large in number, and instead local issues have taken precedence. The community is said to reportedly have an impact over four seats in this region.  Similarly, Ganganager in the state has also been witnessing the anger of the community. The result was evident in the 2023 assembly elections in the state, where the BJP performed quite poorly in Ganganagar which had seen thousands gathered for protests against the government for farmers’ issues.

Yashpal Malik, president of the Akhil Bhartiya Jat Aarakshan Sangharsh Samiti, spoke to The Print, saying this anger was across states and not just in Rajasthan, but also in Jat-concentrated areas of Punjab, Haryana, and UP, “The biggest reason for this is the way that party’s treatment of farmers during their protests (both in 2020-21 and earlier this year). The BJP had promised to implement the Swaminathan Commission report (in their manifesto) but when farmers launched an agitation to demand this, the BJP used brutal measures to suppress them.” In the 2019 elections, the Jat community had supported the BJP only with a small margin over its support for the Congress, which was where 39% of the community’s votes went, as opposed to the BJP who received 42% of the votes.

The agricultural crisis thus has created a substantial crisis for the BJP. In Maharashtra, according to The Hindu, Buldhana, Akola, Amravati, Wardha, Yavatmal-Washim, Hingoli, Nanded, and Parbhani in the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions have been facing extreme conditions of drought and unseasonal rains leading to a severe agrarian crisis. According to the newspaper, early reports from phases 1 and 2 of the polling have pointed toward the possibility that the BJP may face a tough battle in these regions, even though it had listed its big leaders, such as Devendra Fadnavis to campaign and reassure farmers in the region.

Discontent continues to persist in parts of India. It remains yet to be seen how much of it will translate into a resounding defeat for the BJP.

Related:

Farmers’ demand to ‘Quit’ WTO explained: Elections 2024

 GOI withholding arrears of paddy farmers in Kerala for narrow electoral gain: AIKS

Tyre cartel pays ruling BJP for govt’s connivance in ruining rubber farmers, plantation workers, small and medium traders & MSMEs alleges AIKS

RSS must stop demonising farmers’ movement: AIKS

The post From the farm to the poll booth, the BJP has lost farmer trust appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While delivering the judgment, Justice Datta stated “While balanced perspective is important but blindly doubting a system can breed scepticism and thus meaningful criticism is needed. Be it judiciary, legislature, etc., democracy is all about maintaining harmony and trust among all the pillars. By nurturing a culture of trust and collaboration we can strengthen the voice of our democracy,” Bar and Bench provided.

Justice Datta further said that “Instead of unwarranted distrust, a critical yet constructive approach guided by evidence and reason should be followed…to ensure the system’s credibility and effectiveness”.

The pleas in the matter had been filed by NGO-Association for Democratic Reforms, Abhay Bhakchand Chhajed and Arun Kumar Aggarwal. The petitioners had prayed that instead of the prevalent procedure, where the Election Commission cross-verifies EVM votes with VVPATs in only 5 randomly selected polling stations in each assembly constituency, all VVPATs be verified. They further sought measures to ensure that a vote is ‘recorded as cast’ and ‘counted as recorded’.

It is essential to note that the Supreme Court bench had reserved its judgment on April 18. The matter was listed again on April 24 as the Bench wanted some technical clarifications from the Election Commission. The clarifications sought by the officer of the Election Commission were regarding the installation of the micro-controller and whether the same is one-time programmable or not. In addition to this, the bench had asked about the sealing of both the control unit and the VVPAT of EVMs, the number of Symbol Loading Units available and the limitation period for filing election petition. Taking into consideration the answers provided by the officer, the judgment was pronounced today.

Notably, as reported by LiveLaw, a total of two separate yet concurring judgments have been authored by the Bench in the said matter. During the delivery of the judgment, Justice Khanna said “We have elaborately discussed the protocols, technical aspects.” 

Directions issued by the Supreme Court:

The following directions were issued by the bench to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and other authorities:

1. Sealing and securing symbol loading unit: That on completion of the symbol loading process in the EVM undertaken on or after May 1, 2024, the symbol loading unit should be sealed and secured in containers. The bench directed the candidates and their representatives to sign the seal. It was further directed that the sealed containers containing the SLUs shall be kept in the store rooms along with the EVMs at least for 45 days post the declaration of results. The same will then be opened and sealed like EVMs.
2. Checking and verification of burnt memory: The bench allowed for the verification of the burnt memory semi-controller of 5% of EVMs per assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency in case a written request for the same is made by either of two runner-up candidates, after declaration of results. As provided by Justice Khanna, the burnt memory semi controller in 5% of the EVMs, i.e. the Control Unit, Ballot Unit and the VVPAT, per assembly constituency per parliamentary constituency shall be checked and verified by a team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVM post the announcement of results upon a written request by the runner-up candidates.

Notably, such a request by the candidates has to be made within 7 days of the declaration of the results. The bench further directed that the actual cost of the verification process has to be borne by the candidate making the said request. However, in case any discrepancy or tampering is found to have taken place with the EVM, the aforementioned expenses will be refunded.

The bench additionally directed that while making the request for verification, the candidates or their representatives shall identify the EVMs sought to be checked by the polling station or the serial number. The request is to be made within 7 days from the date of declaration of the results and all candidates (and their representatives) shall have the option to remain present at the time of verification. Notably, the bench directed that the district election officer shall certify the authenticity of the burnt memory;

It is crucial to note that Justice Khanna further asked the ECI to examine the feasibility for introducing an electronic machine for vote counting the paper slips. Furthermore, the Bench asked the ECI to consider whether, along with the symbols, there can be a bar code for each party.

Related:

ECI issues notice to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge after receiving complaint from BJP alleging violation of electoral laws by Rahul Gandhi for delivering “scurrilous” speeches against Prime Minister Modi

ECI issues notice to BJP party, and not the star campaigner himself, over alleged hate speech delivered by PM Modi, seeks response by 11 am, April 29

Is the Indian EVM & VVPAT System free, fair, fit for elections or can it be manipulated?

EVM security: Whose responsibility is it anyway?

The post VVPAT-EVM Verification: SC issues directions for fool-proofing EVM, sealing of EVMs & SLUs enabling runner-up candidate verification appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Election Commission of India on April 25 issued the notice to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, following the complaint by BJP to the Commission on April 19, asking the latter to take action against Rahul Gandhi and Kharge for alleged violation of Model Code of Conduct, the Representation of Peoples Act (RPA), 1951, and the relevant Sections of Indian Penal Code, including 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, language, residence, etc.), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 171C (undue influence at elections), 295A (outraging religious feelings of a class), 499 (defamation), and 505 (2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes).

In the complaint that was submitted by BJP’s Om Pathak to the Election Commission on April 19, Pathak had flagged two speeches delivered by Rahul Gandhi at Kottayam and Coimbatore on April 18 and April 12, respectively. In addition, Kharge was also flagged for his statement which he gave during his media interaction with Indian Express on April 18. Interestingly, the complaint invokes Section 123 (3A) (attempt to promote enmity between different classes) and Section 123 (4) (The publication by a candidate of any statement of fact which is false) of the RPA, strongly building its case on the latter.

The Commission in its notice has asked Kharge, as a president of National Party, “to bring to the notice of all…star campaigners to set high standards of political discourse and observe provisions of MCC in letter and spirit”. It remarked that “the Commission has taken a view that while the individual star campaigner would continue to remain responsible for speeches made, the Commission will address party President / Head of the political party, on case-to-case basis”. It recorded in its notice that under Section 77 of RPA, the status of Star Campaigner is statutorily determined by the relevant party, and as a Star Campaigner, their speeches need to be judged at a higher threshold of compliance.

Importantly, commenting on the responsibilities of the parties to make them more accountable, transparent, and democratic, ECI emphasised that it is of a considered view that “political parties will have to take primary and increasing responsibility for the conduct of their candidates in general and star campaigners in particular.”

The Commission also attached the complaint received by it from the BJP against Rahul Gandhi and Kharge, on the basis of which the notice was issued. In its complaint, the Bharatiya Janta Party, apart from accusing Gandhi and Kharge of spreading lies against the PM, also provided links and excerpts to the news reports showcasing its achievements and the statements of the Prime Minister to contradict the accusations made against Modi.

Importantly, apart from the directives and mild reprimand, the notice does not envisage any coercive steps or legal action against the speaker(s) or the party, and merely reproduces the content of the complaint received by it. As a matter of fact, ECI also released a similar notice against BJP on the same date, regarding the complaints received against Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the speech he delivered in Banswara on April 21, in which he accused the Congress of willing to distribute country’s wealth to Muslims, referring the latter as “intruders” and “those with more children”. On the political side of the things, ECI seems to have equated the two complaints, failing to differentiate the content and nature of the speeches, thus attempting to play down the criticism against its ominous silence over the hate speech delivered by the Prime Minister.

Details of the complaint against Rahul Gandhi and Kharge

One of the speeches which the BJP attacked as violative of electoral laws was delivered in Kottayam, Kerala, on April 18 by Rahul Gandhi. The excerpt from the speech as attached in the complaint reads as follow; “…If a daughter graduates from a university, her parents congratulate in Malayalam. When a brother loses the other brother, he communicates in Malayalam. Thus, Kerala is Malayalam, Malayalam is Kerala. I get surprised when I hear PM giving speeches where he says one nation, one language, and one religion. How can you tell people of Tamil to not speak Tamil, people of Kerala to not speak Malayalam, people… Every single Indian language is as important as any other language. BJP does this with language, place, caste and religion. Whenever they get an opportunity, they divide the country…”

Accusing Gandhi of being “habitual serious offender”, BJP elaborates in its complaint that it had earlier flagged his other speech against PM Modi, for which he was given show cause notice by the ECI, but this has not stopped Gandhi from once again levelling “grossly malafide, patently false and utterly sinister allegations against the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu.”

The complaint provides the following excerpt from Rahul Gandhi’s April 12 Coimbatore speech:

“They took away my Lok Sabha membership within a week. I was thrown out of the Lok Sabha….And when they spoke whole world listen because they knew these are not individuals speaking, this si the voice of the Tamil people speaking. And now the voice of the Tamil people is asking a few simple questions, it is asking Narendra Modi, Mr Adani and the RSS these questions. The first question is, why are you attacking our language, our history, and our tradition. You come here and you say I like dosas, and then you go back to Delhi and you say one nation, one leader, one language. Why one language, why not space for Tamil, why not space for Bengali, why not space for kannada, why not space for Manipuri…….So, you come here you tell the people of Tamil Nadu you like dosa and then you insult them and you attack their culture, their history and their language……Today most vice chancellors who are defining the way we educate our children are from the RSS. The bureaucratic system, the Election Commission, the legal system is all being infiltrated by the RSS and the RSS is placing their people in all these institutions….  This is the attack on the very idea of our nation. It is an attack on the Union of India. The BJP has clearly said that they are going to change the constitution if they win the elections. ……..”

Rejecting the accusation of promoting “one language” and “one religion”, BJP remarked that he (Rahul Gandhi) is applying the “nefarious formula to create linguistic and cultural divide in the minds of people of India for electoral gains”

The ruling party also tagged Kharge for his comments during his interaction at Indian Express Idea Exchange, in which he had said that scheduled castes and tribes are discriminated against and claimed that he was not even invited to the Pran Pratishta of Ram Lala in Ayodhya on 22^nd January 2024. BJP remarked that his non-participation in the ceremony on 22^nd January was “not attributable to any denial of invitation or discrimination or lack of respect shown to him. It is a matter of record that Ayodhya trust handed over formal invitation to him through its highest functionaries.”

Concluding its complaint, it requested the Commission to (i) direct Kharge and Gandhi to issue unconditional public apology; (ii) reprimand, censure, and restrain them from making any such “lies” during the remaining term of the “electioneering” and (iii) direct the registration of an FIR under the “stringent provisions of laws.”

The ECI notice can be found here:

Related:

Rising tide of hate speech sours election climate, targeting religious minorities

United Against Hate: CJP’s Battle for a Hate-Free Election in 2024!

Towards a Hate Free Nation: CJP releases Handbook, approaches SEC to issue advisory to district authorities before Ram Navami

The post ECI issues notice to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge after receiving complaint from BJP alleging violation of electoral laws by Rahul Gandhi for delivering “scurrilous” speeches against Prime Minister Modi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The panel, named as “Independent panel for monitoring Indian elections – 2024”, comprises Neera Chandhoke (National Fellow at Indian Council of Social Science Research, and retd. Professor, Delhi University, India), Dr Thomas Daffern (philosopher and historian; chairman of World Intellectuals Wisdom Forum; Director, International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (France and UK); Convenor, Commonwealth Interfaith Network), Sakhawat Hossain (former election commissioner of Bangladesh), Dr Harish Karnick (former professor, IIT, Kanpur), Dr Sebastian Morris (former professor, IIM, Ahmedabad) and Professor Rahul Mukherji (Professor & Chair, Modern Politics of South Asia, South Asia Institute, Heidelberg University, Germany).

According to details provided by the group, the idea behind the formation of monitoring panel is to address the “concerns raised by civil society groups regarding the “credibility of the Election Commission of India, to ensure a level-playing field between political parties, and address grievances of stakeholders, as 970 million Indian voters will cast their votes in April-May 2024.”

The IPMIE plans to release periodic in-depth interim and final reports, based on its monitoring of general election 2024. In its reports, the independent group plans to point out possible violations in the Model Code of Conduct and whether there is an erosion of a level playing field for political parties and voters from different communities.

In its most recent bulletin, which was released on March 27, 2024, the panel has highlighted key concerns that have come forth in regards to the conduct of free and fair elections since the announcement of elections have been made. Notably, the announcement of the dates of the elections was made on March16, 2024.

In the catalogue of concerns, IPMEI had covered myriad issues, from concerns related to the appointment of election commissioners, media bias, to the recent arrest of Aam Aadmi Party Chief and Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal and the data revelations of electoral bond scheme. The list of observations made in the recent bulletin is as follows:

“1. Appointment of Election Commissioners: The recent appointment of two election commissioners to the ECI has reportedly been criticised by the sole non- ruling party member of the selection committee, who has claimed that the names of the shortlisted candidates were not provided to him in adequate time, among other “procedural lapses”. Supreme Court too has expressed concerns at “procedure adopted” in the appointments.

2. Questions regarding polling schedule and voting phases: The long seven-phase election cycle announced by ECI is seen as advantaging the ruling BJP, and its “star campaigner”, Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
3. Continuing concerns over EVMs: There are continuing doubts regarding the robustness of EVMs, as expressed by civil society. RTI inquiries reveal a high rate of EVM failure reported by states to the ECI during the 2019 elections. The suggestions offered by civil society to overcome these challenges, such as by counting VVPATs as ballots, have not been accepted by the ECI, in its plans for general election 2024, and concerns around the EVMs have not been addressed in a satisfactorily.
4. Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS): We also take note of the significance of Supreme Court’s recent judgement on EBS. From the evidence and analysis available publicly, it seems EBS has been used by the ruling BJP unscrupulously, to, among others, put pressure on potential donors. The bonds seem to provide significant financial privilege favouring the ruling party that undermines the competitive aspects of India’s electoral democracy.
5. Prime Minister Modi’s speech invoking religious sentiments: PM Narendra Modi, in an election speech delivered in Salem, Tamil Nadu, on 19 March, was reported invoking religious sentiments in electoral campaigning. Please see this for example of a media report. We are made to understand that complaints have been filed with the ECI on this alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct, specifically this complaint, reported in the press.
6. Arrest of Arvind Kejriwal, a sitting opposition Chief Minister: The arrest of a sitting Chief Minister from an opposition political party during elections casts serious doubts over whether a level playing field is being provided to all parties going into the election. This comes after the arrest recently, of another sitting CM from the opposition, Hemant Soren in Jharkhand. There seems to be a clear pattern in using investigative agencies to disproportionately target opposition political parties and their leading figures, which will have a chilling effect on the opposition’s ability to contest the elections freely and fairly.
7. Media bias: We take note of the fact that most mainstream media has presented an unbalanced picture regarding issues that impact free and fair elections, including electoral bonds, arrest of sitting Chief Ministers. These too have the potential to bias information available with voters in favour of the ruling party, thus breaching the obligation to ensure a level playing field.
8. Voter Registration: Article 325 of Indian Constitution states:….”no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in any such roll or claim to be included in any special electoral roll for any such constituency on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them.” yet evidence shows that millions of Muslim Indians and millions of Dalits have been systematically excluded from the rolls: an urgent inquiry needs to be undertaken by the EC into how this has happened, and how it can be swiftly rectified.”

Related:

Top US academics, including Amartya Sen, condemn long incarceration of journalists & activists, erosion of Indian democracy

Corruption as an issue in Indian Election Campaigns: the 2024 story

Nothing ‘Right’ about India’s Human Rights Commission

The post IPMIE Bulletin on Elections 2024: Appointment of Election Commissioners, arrest of Arvind Kejriwal, EVM failure, media bias, voter registration appeared first on SabrangIndia.