Plea challenges six-month jail for false EVM complaints

MUMBAI: A Mumbai-based advocate has moved the Bombay high court to challenge what he terms as a “draconian” rule for voters who wish to file a compliant against malfunctioning electronic voting machines (EVMs). Advocate Prakash Wagh mentioned the petition before a division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice M S Sanklecha on Friday. The bench asked the advocate to approach the registrar to place the matter before an appropriate bench.Wagh has challenged the norms in the ‘Manual on EVM and VVPAT’ issued by the Election Commission of India. Section 49MA of the Conduct of Election Rules details steps to be taken if a voter alleges that he had pressed the button on an EVM for one candidate but the paper slip generated by the VVPAT (voter-verified paper audit trail) is for another. The rules say the election officer must obtain a declaration from the voter that he is aware if his allegation is found to be false or incorrect then he could be prosecuted under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code for furnishing false information. This section invites six months in jail or a Rs 1,000 fine or both. Wagh alleged that this may stop voters from filing genuine complaints about EVMs and VVPAT machines. “Instead of devising methods to ward off scurrilous attacks by disgruntled souls, the Election Commission has armed itself with a draconian weapon that will pre-empt any bona fide and well-meaning grievances against the working of the VVPATs. This will destroy public faith in the concept of fair and transparent elections,” the petition has claimed. Wagh pointed to news reports of a former director general of police (Assam), who did not file a complaint as he was told about the penal provision. He questioned the correctness of using the IPC offence in such cases. “Section 177 only contemplates a person who is under legal obligation to furnish any information to a public servant. However, a complainant who casts aspersion on the working of VVPATs is not under any such obligation nor the grievance or complaint made by him can be termed as information within the meaning of the provision,” the petition said.