DNA Edit: VVPAT error – Penalising complainants is hardly the best way to go

A former director general of police (DGP), Assam has managed to bring the focus on VVPAT slips as no opposition rumble has been able to do so far.  Ex-DGP Assam, Harekrishna Deka, complained of a mismatch this week when he went to cast his vote in Guwahati; his VVPAT slip showed a candidate different from the one he had voted for, a charge levelled constantly on the working of EVM machines by leading opposition lights. Deka, taken aback by the malfunctioning VVPAT, was shocked further when he was told that if he lodged a complaint and if it turned out to be false, he could face six months imprisonment! 

For the Election Commission (EC), which has been at pains to emphasise that EVM machines are fool proof, this is hardly good publicity. Systems to take a call on the veracity of VVPATs have to be less complex and time consuming and certainly less threatening than they are at the moment. After all, no voter would like to challenge the VVPAT machine if there is criminal liability coming his way. Unbeknownst to Deka, several hundred km to the South, Ebin Babu, a 21-year-old, was arrested on similar charges in Kerala. He had complained of the VVPAT slip showing a different candidate from the one he had voted for. In a test voting, Babu’s claim turned out to be untrue and he was held under Section 177 (furnishing false information), to be later released on bail. The point is, why should the EC go to such lengths to provide a deterrent that always has a chance of boomeranging on itself. 

In response to what Deka told the media after his VVPAT trouble, officials at the local EC were of the view that he should have brought it to the notice of senior Commission officials. In doing so, they threw the rule book at Deka: the EC’s manual on the use of EVMs and VVPATs issued in February this year says a complaint of wrong printing has to be reported to the presiding officer, who will take a declaration, explaining that if found false, the complainant can be penalised. Surely, the EC has better ways to deal with complaints. It can be no one’s case that even if the petition is wrong, a man should be penalised. If this is meant to deter potential complainants, then it makes little sense; if anything it strengthens the case against faulty EVMs, which is not the case, as all chief election commissioners without exception, have testified. 

The EC manual — no doubt drafted in a pique after repeated questions were raised, in particular by political parties who have lost elections — makes it a point to state that “since the introduction of VVPATs, more than 18 crore voters have cast their vote... and only one complaint received... which was also found to be false...” The EC’s irritation is understandable, but it does need to relax its rules, if the good word about VVPAT slips is to go out to all and sundry.