The following is excerpt from RO’s report of fresh scrutiny conducted on May 3 & 4, 2014 on allegations of poll malpractices.
With reference to the subject cited above and in continuation to this Office letter of even No. dated 06th May, 2014, I am to submit herewith the detailed Report of Fresh Scrutiny conducted on 3rd and 4th of May, 2014 in accordance to the parameters set by the Election Commission of India vide letter No. 495/NL-HP/2014 dated 1st May, 2014.
Apart from the two polling stations namely, 2-Akhakhu and 25-Naltoqa under 33 A/C Suruhoto which were recommended for re- poll, all the remaining polling stations scrutinized do not have substantial basis for declaration of the polls as void. Accordingly, we do not recommend re-poll in any of the polling stations.
Further, in response to your letter No. ELE/CDT-206/2014/282 dated 9th May, 2014 in connection to the 5 point complaint of the President, NPCC to the Chief Election Commissioner, the following is our comment:-
1.While it is a fact that 84 polling stations had web casting facility, only one polling station i.e., P/S 21-Longleng HQ ‘B’ under 50 A/C Longleng fell within the category for viewing by the Returning Officer as per the parameters of the Commission. Since there was no specific instruction that the viewing of web casting, video recording, etc. were to be carried out during the scrutiny of the various documents and in presence of the political parties, the undersigned viewed the entire recording along with other Officers and could not find any substantial evidence of malpractice so as to merit re-poll. It may be mentioned that there was no request for viewing of the recording during the scrutiny.
2.It is not understood how and under what circumstances the video contained in the CD submitted by the NPCC was filmed. In fact, as per ECI letter No. 464/INST/2008/EPS dated 19th January, 2009, no photography or video recording by any person inside the Polling Stations is permitted except by the persons authorized by the Commission. Further, the letter stipulates penal action against those contravening this provision. However, in order to be abundantly clear, the CD was referred to the ARO, Wokha. His report is enclosed.
3.It is a matter of regret that the Returning Officer, after having continuously carried out the scrutiny in the most transparent manner, is accused of clandestinely picking up two polling stations for re-poll. It may be mentioned that the entire process of scrutiny was video recorded, should there be any doubts on the role of the undersigned. Our report of 6th May,2014 alongwith the enclosed report is evident enough of the efforts that have been made to detect any malpractice.
4.This office is not aware of any Rule wherein polling stations recording over 98% of voting should be recommended for re-poll. In fact, in my opinion, the high percentage of voting shows the effectiveness of the SVEEP campaign carried out in the State.
5.With respect to the 6 polling stations (Wing A,B,C,D,E &F) in Phusachotu Village under 18 Chazouba A/C, the enclosed scrutiny report may kindly be perused.
In addition to the 5 points mentioned, the NPCC had also complained that:-
a) there was only one polling agent of a political party in many polling stations. This is a fact. However, if the political parties do not send their polling agents to a particular polling station, this cannot be the lookout of the Returning Officer.
b)many of the polling booths which recorded more than 90% did not have Micro-Observers. Since there is no Rule that polling booths recording more than 90% voting should have Micro-Observers and since there is no way in forecasting the voter turnout, the question of posting Micro-Observers to such Polling Stations does not arise.
c)that many of the Presiding Officers reports are scratchy and not consistent and that many were corrected on the table of the Returning Officer. While, as mentioned in the scrutiny report, there were some inconsistencies detected, no corrections have been made by the undersigned in the P.O. Diaries, as this would amount to malpractice. This is a very serious allegation that undermines the integrity of the undersigned.
d)that signatures/thumb impressions in the polling register need to be authenticated through forensic laboratory. To carry this authentication is beyond the powers of the Returning Officer.
This is for favour of your information and further necessary action.
Leave a Reply