AAP flays EC decision of not using VVPAT machines for local body elections
The AAP demanded that either VVPAT machines should be used or the old method of ballot paper.
'The VVPAT machine is directly connected to the electronic voting machine. The VVPAT machine creates a paper slip visible to the voters, on which information about which party and symbol the voter has voted is recorded. The voter can inspect this slip and this slip is deposited in the machine,' said AAP spokesperson Mukund Kirdat.
Regarding the counting of VVPATs, the opposition has always demanded a physical counting of fifty percent or more machines. Transparency and voter confidence have also been considered important by the Supreme Court. In such a situation, it would be wrong to use only EVMs in local body elections, AAP said.
'Verification is necessary for any valid measuring device. If there is any malfunction or disruption in the voting machine or its use for any reason, how will the votes be verified? A machine that cannot be verified is declared unfit for measurement…The Supreme Court said in its 2024 judgment that the VVPAT is essential to guarantee transparency and integrity in the system. Allowing the voter to see the VVPAT slip through a glass window assures them their vote was cast and recorded. It strengthens the principle of vote verification, which increases the overall accountability of the election process. Hence, local elections must be held on EVM machines linked with VVPAT,' said Kirdat.
'During state elections, many candidates have cast doubts about EVM machines and demanded counting of VVPAT slips. Hence, we are demanding that if VVPAT is not available , voting be done on ballot papers. Otherwise, there is a fear that many issues and disputes will arise during the elections and during the counting, and the voters' faith in democracy will decrease,' Kirdat said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Prez Trump plans to sign an order requiring US colleges to prove they don't consider race in admissions
President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions, according to a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday signing. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students' lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays. Trump's Republican administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race. The executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the administration negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research funding. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardised test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public. Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures. The planned executive order makes the same argument. 'The lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of diversity statements' and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,' the fact sheet said. The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges' diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next. Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year. Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant's background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling. 'Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court's conservative majority. As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses. Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state. Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California in 1996. The University of California saw enrollment change after the statewide ban in 1996. Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrolments fell by half at the system's two most selective campuses — Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students. The 10-campus University of California system also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model. In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants. Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California's high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley. After Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006, the University of Michigan shifted attention to low-income students. The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. It offered full scholarships for low-income Michigan residents and, more recently, started accepting fewer early admission applications, which are more likely to come from white students. Despite the University of Michigan's efforts, the share of Black and Hispanic undergraduates hasn't fully rebounded from a falloff after 2006. And while Hispanic enrollments have been increasing, Black enrollments continued to slide, going from 8% of undergraduates in 2006 to 4% in 2025
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Banke Bihari temple: SC stays Allahabad HC orders, questions 'intemperate' language
Synopsis The Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval of the Allahabad High Court's handling of a PIL concerning the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan. The apex court questioned the "intemperate language" used against the Uttar Pradesh government and stayed the observations made by the single-judge bench, further halting proceedings and requesting a division bench review. IANS Banke Bihari temple The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the orders passed by Allahabad High Court in a PIL over historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan and questioned the use of "intemperate language" against the Uttar Pradesh government. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi perused the orders of July 21 and August 6 by a single-judge bench of the high court on a PIL which challenged the ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and stayed the observations made in them. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government pointed out to the bench that the high court conducted "parallel proceedings" on the issue and made certain "unwarranted observations" in the order. "What kind of intemperate language is being used by the high court? Like the state committed a sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the high court not informed that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter?" the bench said. Justice Kant further said the petitions challenging constitutional validity of a statute were always listed before the division bench but a single-judge passed the order in the present case. The bench ordered a stay on the observations made in the July 21 order, which appointed an amicus curiae besides the August 6 order having observations against the state. The top court also stayed further proceedings before the high court in the petition challenging the ordinance. It asked the Allahabad High Court chief justice to consider listing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance before a division bench along with other petitions. On August 6, the high court criticised the state government's move to bring an ordinance proposing a statutory trust to manage the historic Banke Bihari Temple and observed that the state has committed a 'sin'. During the hearing, the single judge made sharp remarks on an attempt of the state government to take over the administration of the temple and asked the government to "leave the temple alone".
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Dharmasthala burial row: SC refuses to gag media from covering case
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday refused to gag media from reporting on the Dharmasthala mass burial case in Karnataka. Dharmasthala burial row: SC refuses to gag media from covering case A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, however, directed a trial court in Karnataka to decide afresh the plea filed by the secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple seeking removal of what he alleged was defamatory content targeting the family managing the temple. The top court noted gag orders were passed only in extremely rare cases and asked the petitioner to place all materials before the trial court. The bench clarified it hadn't expressed opinion on the merits of the matter The high court on August 1 set aside a gag order issued by a Bengaluru civil court restraining reportage on the burial case. The gag order was over reports on the alleged murders of women in Dharmasthala in the state's Dakshina Kannada district. The petitioner's lawyer alleged around 8,000 YouTube channels were running defamatory material against the temple. Harshendra Kumar D, Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple body, moved the apex court seeking removal of the alleged defamatory content. On July 23, the CJI-led bench declined to hear another petition filed by YouTube channel Third Eye challenging a sweeping gag order that restrained media houses from reporting on matters related to the brother of Dharamadhikari D Veerendra Heggade of Dharamsthala in Karnataka. The plea, filed against an ex parte interim order of a local court, questioned the legality of the directive which directed as many as 390 media houses to remove nearly 9,000 links and stories related to the Dharamsthala burial case. The gag order was passed in Kumar's defamation suit alleging spread of false and defamatory online content, despite the absence of specific allegations against him or the temple authorities in any FIR. Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara recently said a thorough investigation must precede any conclusions regarding the alleged murders of women in Dharmasthala. The state government has constituted a special investigation team to probe the allegations. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
