Latest news with #Form17A
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
CEOs of Maharashtra, Haryana issue fresh letter to Rahul Gandhi, give him 10 days to prove 'voter fraud' claims
NEW DELHI: The chief electoral officers of Maharashtra and Haryana on Sunday sent fresh letters to Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, giving him 10 days to furnish a signed declaration with particulars of electors he alleged were fraudulently added, so that necessary proceedings may be initiated. Karnataka CEO too sent a notice to Rahul on Sunday, citing Mahadevapura voter Shakun Rani's denial of his claim at a recent press conference that she had voted twice from Mahadevapura AC in 2024 Lok Sabha polls. The Congress leader was requested him to provide the documents based on which he had reached the conclusion, so that a detailed inquiry could be held. 'On inquiry, Smt Shakun Rani (the voter in question) had stated that she has voted only once and not twice, as alleged by you. Preliminary inquiry conducted by this office also reveals that the tick-marked document shown by you in the presentation is not a document issued by the polling officer," the CEO said in a letter sent to the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha. The Election Commission, in wake of the Karnataka CEO's latest letter to Rahul, once again asked him to submit a timely response. 'He should either file the declaration/oath under Rules 20(3)b of the Registration of Electors Act 1960 or apologise to the nation for making baseless allegation against EC,' said an EC functionary. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Affordable 60 sqm Bungalows in Malaysia: Perfect for the Elderly Prefabricated Homes | Search Ads Search Now Undo Sources said if Rahul does not furnish a declaration, his claims cannot be investigated since the law requires evidence by any person (who is not a voter in that particular constituency himself) to be tendered on oath. If Rahul were to furnish an oath and the evidence and it is found to be fabricated or false, Section 227 and 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (giving false evidence) shall kick in; the section provides for jail term up to three years and, if this false evidence is repeated in court, it invites jail up to seven years. Also, making false allegations in connection with preparation, revision or correction of electoral roll or inclusion/exclusion of any entry in electoral roll, is punishable with imprisonment up to one year under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Meanwhile, EC sources on Sunday told TOI that the alleged polling records shown by Rahul as 'EC data' with 'tick marks' against Shakun Rani's name, appear fabricated, as such records form part of Form 17A maintained and retained by the polling officer. Access to Form 17A is limited to authorised EC officials and these are not shared with the political parties. The parties' polling agents do get polling records but in Form 17C, which do not contain the voters' photographs. Form 17A is only produced before the court when sought in any judicial proceeding. Flashing a "forged document" at a press conference could spell legal consequences for Rahul as he may face an FIR for violation of Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which provides for jail term up to seven years for forging a govt-issued ID like voter identity card or a register maintained by a public servant. Also being in possession of such forged documents is a criminal offence under Section 339 of BNS, also punishable with imprisonment that can extend to seven years. EC sources said the Karnataka CEO is yet to receive any documents cited by Rahul at last week's press conference to allege 'massive voter fraud' in the state's Mahadevapura AC. Rahul Gandhi had, in his presentation at the press conference, displayed Shakun Rani's voter details in the electoral roll "obtained through RTI from EC ERO login" and the "BLA-marked electoral roll", and claimed in his remarks that the polling officer had ticked against her ID card twice, recording her duplicate votes. Interestingly, the role of a political party's booth level agent (BLA) is limited to activities concerning the electoral roll; it's the polling agents who represent the party and their candidates in the polling station are their polling agents.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Give proof of vote fraud: 3 state CEOs to Rahul
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi 's "vote chori" allegations drew reminder notices Sunday from the chief electoral officers of three states, with Haryana and Maharashtra seeking affidavits under oath, and Karnataka asking for documents in a specific case involving a woman who publicly disputed his claim that she voted twice in 2024 LS olls. "On inquiry, Shakun Rani (the voter in question from Mahadevapura) stated that she has voted only once and not twice, as alleged by you...," Karnataka CEO V Anbukkumar said in his second letter to Rahul. Pressure mounts on Rahul to file vote affidavit Preliminary inquiry conducted by this office also reveals that the tick-marked document shown by you in the presentation is not a document issued by the polling officer," Karnataka CEO V Anbukkumar said in his second letter in four days to Rahul Gandhi. EC sources said "tick marks" against Shakun Rani's name on separate lists flagged by Rahul as "EC data" appeared fabricated, based on information in Form 17A maintained and retained by the respective polling officers. Access to Form 17A is limited to authorised EC officials and these are not shared with political parties. Polling agents of parties get polling records in Form 17C, which do not contain photographs. Form 17A is only produced if a court seeks it. Maharashtra's chief electoral officer S Chockalingam, who first wrote to Lok Sabha LoP on Aug 7, sent a reminder to submit his "declaration/oath" within 10 days so that proceedings could be initiated. In his first letter, the bureaucrat mentioned the dates on which the draft and final rolls had been shared with Congress, also pointing out that the party never filed first appeals with the district magistrates or second appeals with the election office. The letter specified that election results could only be contested in a high court. "You are kindly requested to sign and return the enclosed Declaration/Oath under rule 20(3) (B) of the Registration of Electoral Rules 1960 with the names of such electors," it said. In an identical notice, Haryana CEO A Sreenivas gave Rahul 10 days to submit an affidavit under oath specifying his allegations about vote fraud along with supporting documents. A day after the presser, Sreenivas said his office had shared copies of electoral rolls with representatives of Congress during the meetings ahead of elections. The CEO said if the party doubted the fairness of the process, it would need to challenge the voting results in Punjab and Haryana HC and provide details of the "claims and objections made before officials". The first letter from Sreenivas to Rahul was sent on Saturday. Sources said flashing a "forged document" at a presser could spell legal consequences for Rahul, including an FIR for violation of Section 337 of BNS, which stipulates a jail term of up to seven years.
News18
22-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
EC Cites Privacy, Legal Concerns After Congress Demands Polling Booth CCTV Footage
Last Updated: The Election Commission cited privacy and legal issues in response to Rahul Gandhi's demand for CCTV footage of polling stations. Gandhi urged publishing digital voter rolls. Following a demand made by Congress MP and Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi, the Election Commission on Saturday cited privacy and legal hurdles while sharing the CCTV footage of webcasting of the polling stations. This comes after Rahul Gandhi has called upon the Election Commission to publish consolidated, digital, machine-readable voter rolls for the most recent elections to the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas of all states, including Maharashtra, saying that 'telling the truth" will protect the poll panel's credibility. ECI said that the seemingly legitimate appeal of releasing the videos or CCTV footage from polling stations on election day undermines voter privacy and security, contradicting the Representation of the People Act and Supreme Court guidelines. 'What is veiled as a very logical demand is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters, legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1950/1951 and the directions of the Supreme Court of India," it said. 'Sharing of the footage, which would enable easy identification of the electors by any group or an individual, would leave both the elector who has voted as well as the elector who has not voted vulnerable to pressure, discrimination and intimidation by anti-social elements," the poll body added. It said that if a particular political party gets a lesser number of votes in a particular booth, it would easily be able to identify, through the CCTV footage, which elector has voted and which elector has not, and thereafter, may harass or intimidate the electors. The Election Commission further issued a point-by-point rebuttal to the Congress MP. . In any election, there may be electors who decide not to vote. Sharing of video footage of the poll day may result in the identification of such electors. This can also lead to profiling of the voters who voted as well as those who did not vote, which may become the basis for discrimination, denial of services, intimidation or inducement. Supreme Court order: The Supreme Court held that the right to vote includes the right not to vote, and the right of secrecy is accorded to even those persons who have decided not to vote. Video footage: Polling day videography records the sequence of voters entering the polling station and their identities, similar to Form 17A, which contains sensitive information about voters, including their ID details and signatures. Both pose a risk to voting secrecy. Violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under Section 128 of RP Act, 1951 for – Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section is punishable with imprisonment for a term expending up to 3 months or fine or both.
Hindustan Times
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC
The Election Commission of India has revised its rules for accessibility of video footage recorded during polls, saying that such footage cannot be viewed by anyone except a court hearing an election petition as it could breach privacy of voters and raise security concerns. Polling station clips may breach privacy of voters, says EC Sharing the footage — recorded through CCTVS, webcast or videography — would enable easy identification of electors by any group or individual, and would leave them vulnerable to 'pressure, discrimination, and intimidation by anti-social elements', officials familiar with the matter said citing the EC's communication. In a circular dated June 18, the commission directed all states and Union territories that the revised rule will apply to elections notified after May 30, 2025. '[The videos] shall be produced in original before the High Court adjudicating an election petition on its order and shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except the High Court adjudicating the Election Petition,' the commission said in the circular, which also contained previous communications pertaining to the preservation of video. HT has seen a copy of the circular. The changes have come in the backdrop of a demand by the Congress and other opposition parties to release post-5pm CCTV footage from polling booths in the 2024 Maharashtra assembly elections. In December last year, the government tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV cameras and webcasting footage as well as video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse. Based on the recommendation of the EC, the Union law ministry amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to restrict the type of papers or documents open to public inspection. The commission has also directed it officials to destroy such video footage after 45 days of declaration of results if the election verdict is not challenged in courts, a separate circular issued on May 30 and cited in the latest circular said. Since election results cannot be challenged beyond 45 days, retaining such footage beyond this period would make it susceptible to misuse for 'spreading misinformation and malicious narratives', an official familiar with the matter said. But in case an election petition is filed within the stipulated time of 45 days, the videos will not be destroyed and made available to the competent court, the official cited above said. Providing videos is akin to providing access to Form 17A (register of voters) — which contains information pertaining to the sequence in which electors enter a polling station, serial number of the elector in the electoral roll — under Rule 49L of the Conduct of Election Rules, the official said. 'Violation of secrecy of voting is a punishable offence under section 128 of RPA, 1951 [maintenance of secrecy of voting] with imprisonment for a term up to three months or fine or both. Thus, ECI is legally bound and committed to protect the privacy of the electors and secrecy of voting,' the official said requesting anonymity. A second official said that safeguarding the interests of its electors is 'of prime concern'. 'For the ECI safeguarding the interests of its electors and maintaining their privacy and secrecy is of prime concern, even if some of the political parties/ interest groups mount pressure on the Commission to abandon the laid down procedures or to ignore the security concerns of the electors. Maintaining privacy and secrecy of the elector is non-negotiable and the ECI has, never in the past, compromised on this essential tenet laid down in the law as well upheld by the Supreme Court,' the second official said, requesting anonymity. The move triggered a sharp reaction from Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, who accused EC of 'deleting evidence' when it was required to 'provide answers'. 'Voter list? Will not give machine-readable format. CCTV footage? Hidden by changing the law. Election photos and videos? Now they will be deleted in 45 days, not 1 year. The one who was supposed to provide answers - is the one deleting the evidence,' Gandhi alleged in a post on X. 'It is clear that the match is fixed. And a fixed election is poison for democracy,' the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha posted in Hindi. Gandhi has been demanding voter lists, poll data and video footage from the election commission, alleging irregularities in Maharashtra assembly elections. While the ECI did not respond to Gandhi's comments, a third official said: '[Opposition's remarks] suit their narrative in making the demand sound quite genuine and in the interest of voters and safeguarding the democratic process in the country, it is in fact aimed at achieving exactly the opposite objective. What is veiled as a very logical demand, is actually entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of the voters.' Earlier in the week, a purported video showing two people standing at the EVM in a polling booth during the Visavadar assembly bypoll in Gujarat — held on June 19 — emerged on social media, with EC launching a probe into how the video was leaked.
Time of India
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
ECI cites law and privacy to deny CCTV access as Rahul Gandhi alleges match-fixing
With Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi once again raising questions over the Election Commission amending rules to avoid sharing polling booth CCTV footage, the poll panel on Saturday strongly rejected the charge, saying the very idea was "entirely contrary to the privacy and security concerns of voters, the legal position laid down in the Representation of the People Acts, 1950 and 1951, and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India". It added that safeguarding the interests of electors and maintaining their privacy and secrecy was of prime concern-even if some political parties or interest groups "mount pressure" on the Commission "to abandon laid down procedures or ignore the security concerns of electors". The Congress leader had earlier in the day posted on social media platform X, reiterating his allegations of "match fixing" under the EC's watch and accusing it of trying to hide "evidence". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo The EC, however, maintained that it is "legally bound and committed to protect the privacy of electors and secrecy of voting", and that polling station video footage cannot be provided to any person, candidate, NGO, or third party without the express consent of the elector(s). The Commission said that webcasting at polling booths on voting days is essentially "an internal management tool" for monitoring poll-day activities, and the footage can only be provided under court orders. Live Events "ECI is ready to provide the same to the competent court-i.e. the Hon'ble High Court-when directed in an Election Petition filed to challenge an election, as the court is also a custodian of individual privacy," the EC said. It noted that both videography and Form 17A contain information critical to maintaining the secrecy of voting, as they record the sequence in which electors enter polling stations and their photo/identity. Form 17A is mandated to be provided only under orders of a competent court under Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Therefore, video footage can also only be shared under court orders, the Commission said. It also warned that sharing footage could enable "easy identification of electors by any group or individual", potentially leaving both those who voted and those who did not vulnerable to "pressure, discrimination, and intimidation by anti-social elements". For instance, if a political party received fewer votes at a particular booth, it could use CCTV footage to identify who voted or abstained-and then harass or intimidate voters, the EC noted. It added that violation of voting secrecy is a punishable offence under Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act , 1951. The Commission also defended its decision to reduce the CCTV footage retention period from one year to 45 days, saying this aligns with the time limit for filing an Election Petition (EP) after election results are declared. Since no election can be challenged beyond 45 days of result declaration, retaining footage beyond this period would make it "susceptible to misuse by non-contestants for spreading misinformation and malicious narratives", the EC said. It clarified that in cases where an EP is filed within 45 days, the footage is not destroyed and is made available to the competent court when required.
