26/11 - കുറവില്ലാത്തതു് വിശകലനങ്ങൾക്കു മാത്രം...

26/11 നെ പറ്റി അരുന്ധതി റോയിയുടെ വിശകലനം എപ്പോഴാണുണ്ടാവുന്നതു് എന്നു നോക്കിയിരിക്കുകയായിരുന്നു.. അപ്പോഴാണു് രാജീവ് ശ്രീനിവാസന്റെ ‘നിഴൽ പോരാളി’ യിൽ നിന്നു് വിവരം കിട്ടിയതു്. പ്രതീക്ഷിച്ച രീതിയിൽ തന്നെ വിശകലനം - എവിടെ കളിച്ചാലും പകിട പന്ത്രണ്ടിൽ തന്നെയേ വീഴൂ...

പിന്നെ ഈ നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലെ ഈ. എം. എസ് ആയ സീതാരാം യെച്ചൂരി യുടെ വക അടുത്ത വിശകലനം (വേറൊരു റിപ്പോർട്ട് ഇവിടെ). Indo-US nuclear deal ആണത്രെ മുംബൈ ആക്രമണങ്ങളുടെ യഥാർത്ഥ കാരണം.. ഇതു പോലെ ഒരു ആണവ സഹകരണ കരാർ ചൈനയുമായി ഉണ്ടാക്കിയിരുന്നല്ലോ അമേരിക്ക ഒന്നോ രണ്ടോ വർഷങ്ങൾക്കു മുൻപു് - അവിടെ ഭീകരർ ആക്രമിക്കാഞ്ഞതു് ചൈനയുടെ ഭാഗ്യം എന്നു മാത്രം ആണോ സഖാവു യച്ചൂരിയുടെ അഭിജ്ഞമതം ഇനി...?

Rule 49 O - myths and the fact..

One story that is going rounds through the cyber-space, be they discussion forums, blogs, groups, or email networks, at an increasing frequency lately - particularly after the recent Bomaby terrorist attacks, is the one about Rule 49 O of the "Constitution of India" (which in some emails read 1969 Act of the constitution!!!). The story runs generally thus. It looks a bit bizzare that people genuinely took to this rather mal-intentioned story without batting an eye lid. The least that could have been done was to check if there is indeed an Article numbered 49 O in our constitution, and if yes what does it deal with.

Let's see what the actual facts are:

First of all, this Rule 49 O forms part of "Conduct of Election Rules" 1961. The clause is reproduced below.

49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.-If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumbimpression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.

Full compendium of these rules can be obtained from this link. A write-up about this provision that appeared in The Hindu a few years ago can be seen here.

The wrong impression that was meant to be perpetrated by this hoax email can be illustrated by the following example. Let's assume that in an election, candidate A gets 200,000 votes and candidate B gets 200,123 votes, and the total number of 'no votes' asper Rule 49O comes to 124. Then as per this story, the entire election exercise would be cancelled, repolling ordered and the candidates would be disqualified for 6 years. This notion is wrong - it has no basis absolutely.

At least the perpetrators should have given a more plausible interpretation that if the rejections i.e. 49 O 'no votes' exceed the total number of votes polled, then a re-election needs to be ordered, and the candidates do not have the right to contest again. This is on the premise that more voters have rejected the candidates than the number of voters who have supported them. For example, candidate A gets 200,000 votes, candidate B gets 200,123 votes, but 'no votes' per rule 49O come to 450,000. Then it would have made a better, more credible stroy - without any basis though.

The Election Commission of India, on being made aware of such stories doing the rounds, has come up with a proper clarification on the subject, which you can read here. Please also see the narrative on Wikipedia. "Technology Law India" clarifies thus. An excerpt from their clarification is as follows:

Rule 49-O falls under the Chapter II of Part IV of the Rules which was introduced in 1992 and deals only with voting by electronic voting machines or EVMs. The remark referred to here is an offline entry by the presiding offer (accompanied by the voter’s signature) to record the fact that a vote was not electronically recorded even though the voter had registered in the register of voters. This would allow reconciliation of mismatches arising from a situation where you have lesser votes polled in the machines than the names entered and signed in the register of voters. There is no provision for polling to be cancelled based on the number of 49-O votes.

From another perspective, it can be seen that there is a fundamental flaw as well in this rule. If a voter has opted for Rule 49 (O), then that fact will be known to everyone in the polling station. That is, the 'secret' ballot will no longer be 'secret' ballot. Even the courts are prevented from knowing a voter's choice of candidate under section 94 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1954. It could therefore be that this provision may not stand the test of law, if challenged in a court of law and subjected to legal scrutiny. In fact a petition by the People's Union for Civil Liberties seeking such provision for negative votes is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

It may also be interesting to note that the Election Commission of India through a letter written in 2004 by the then Chief Election Commissioner of India, Mr. T S Krishnamurthy to the Government of India recommended adding a button called 'No Voting' in the Electronic Voting Machines or adding a column in the ballot paper for 'No Voting', so that firstly voters will have that chice, and secondly any such 'No-Vote' decision by the voter remains a secret. The Government of India, as expected, has not taken a decision on it yet (and will not likely to, in the future, as well).

See excerpt from the ECI letter to the Central government:

[Quote]

7. NEGATIVE / NEUTRAL VOTING

The Commission has received proposals from a very large number of individuals and organizations that there should be a provision enabling a voter to reject all the candidates in the constituency if he does not find them suitable. In the voting using the conventional ballot paper and ballot boxes, an elector can drop the ballot paper without marking his vote against any of the candidates, if he chooses so. However, in the voting using the Electronic Voting Machines, such a facility is not available to the voter. Although, Rule 49 O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provides that an elector may refuse to vote after he has been identified and necessary entries made in the Register of Electors and the marked copy of the electoral roll, the secrecy of voting is not protected here inasmuch as the polling officials and the polling agents in the polling station get to know about the decision of such a voter.

The Commission recommends that the law should be amended to specifically provide for negative / neutral voting. For this purpose, Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 may be suitably amended adding a proviso that in the ballot paper and the particulars on the ballot unit, in the column relating to names of candidates, after the entry relating to the last candidate, there shall be a column None of the above, to enable a voter to reject all the candidates, if he chooses so. Such a proposal was earlier made by the Commission in 2001 (vide letter dated 10.12.2001).

[Unquote]