The Election Commission (EC) of India is considering the revision of a regulation that enables the prosecution of a voter if their complaint about the malfunctioning of an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) or a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machine is found to be baseless. This controversial rule, identified as Rule 49MA under the Conduct of Election Rules, has raised eyebrows and debate since its inception.
The Intricacies of Rule 49MA
Rule 49MA grants a voter the chance to cast a test vote if they allege that the EVM or VVPAT machine did not accurately capture their vote. The onus then falls on the voter to verify the discrepancy. Failure to do so may prompt election officials to proceed against the accuser under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 177 revolves around the submission of false information, which penalizes the offender with a jail term of up to six months, a fine amounting to Rs 1,000, or both. Therefore, a voter who cannot substantiate their claim about the malfunction of the voting machine can face criminal charges.
Behind the EC’s Stand on Rule 49MA
Against the backdrop of stark criticism, the EC has firmly stated that the absence of a punitive clause might lead to an inundation of unfounded allegations. Nonetheless, the commission emphasizes that the deployment of this provision should be an anomaly and not a norm. The key motive behind the introduction of this regulation was to dissuade individuals from disrupting the electoral process by making unsubstantiated complaints about the voting machines.
The Supreme Court’s Involvement in Rule 49MA
In April 2019, the Supreme Court, presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, prompted the EC to provide an explanation for a plea aiming at the abolition of Rule 49MA. The plea argued that this rule was unconstitutional because it criminalizes the reporting of EVM or VVPAT machine malfunctions.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 2019 | Supreme Court seeks EC’s response on a plea contesting Rule 49MA |
| Present | EC considering revisiting Rule 49MA |
Constitutional Rights and Rule 49MA
The objection raised against Rule 49MA is that it imposes the responsibility on the voter for possible erratic functioning of the machines. This potentially violates a citizen’s right to freedom of expression as per Article 19(1)(a). Critics argue that reporting a malfunction of the voting system, even if it turns out to be incorrect, should not be considered a crime but instead as an act of expressing concern about the sanctity of the electoral process.
As the Election Commission ponders over whether to retain or revise Rule 49MA, the debate continues to rage on, centered around the balance between safeguarding the electoral process from baseless accusations and protecting voters’ rights to freedom of expression.