Interview with Mr M G Devasahayam, indefatigable activist for electoral transparency regarding the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections
Former IAS Officer Shri M.G. Devasahayam (MGD) merely 83 years young, is the convenor of the Forum for Electoral Democracy and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Elections (CCE). MGD has been tirelessly campaigning for electoral reforms, especially with a view to ensure transparency and accountability in the electoral process. LRS interviewed MGD regarding the misgivings which citizens groups had voiced earlier about the electoral process and in particular about the conduct of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
LRS: Can you say something about the instances of hate speech and violations of the ‘Model Code of Conduct in the 2024’ elections?
MGD: At an election rally in Rajasthan’s Banswara on April 21, 2024 PM Mr Modi claimed the Congress manifesto had promised to seize and redistribute private wealth of Indians among “infiltrators” and “those who have more children”– clear reference to India’s Muslims. In the same speech, the prime minister claimed that the Congress would snatch away the mangalsutras worn by married Hindu women in its bid to distribute wealth among Muslims.
Nearly 20,000 individuals had collectively penned letters to the ECI, urging action against the PM for these derogatory comments made against Muslims. But there was not even a whimper from the ECI on this and other similar ‘poisonous arrows.’ Emboldened by this, Prime Minister went on making more inflammatory statements that clearly violated the MCC and RPA.
Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar gave a self-incriminating explanation to this inaction when he said that the Election Commission had deliberated over poll code violations during the 2024 general elections at length and had decided to not admonish two top leaders each from the Bhartiya Janata Party and the Indian National Congress–Narendra Modi and Amit Shah of the BJP and Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra of the INC. This is clear discrimination and constitutional violation by the CEC. Thus, equality before law – the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – have been prima facie violated by the Election Commission.
LRS: Why do you say that the ECI has also violated Supreme Court directives on the conduct of elections?
MGD: EVM-VVPAT voting and counting does not comply with the essential democratic principle that each voter should be able to verify that her vote is cast and counted as intended, and the current system is not verifiable due to the absence of end to end verifiability. The current system has no way for the voter to verify if the vote is cast and recorded as intended by her. Furthermore, there are no provable guarantees against hacking, tampering and spurious vote injections into the current set of EVMs. In its judgment dated 8.10.2013 in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India, the SC said “the ‘paper trai’ is an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections. The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can be achieved only with the introduction of the ‘paper trail.’. It is necessary to set up EVMs with VVPAT system because vote is nothing but an act of expression which has immense importance in democratic system”
However, in defiance of this basic principle, vide its letter dated 13.02.2018 ECI directed state chief electoral officers to mandatorily verify VVPAT paper slips in only one randomly selected polling station in each assembly constituency. This being around 0.5% sample size which is pathetically low, defeated the very object of installing VVPATs in all EVMs
LRS: Has the Supreme Court of India been consistently upholding these principles in its later judgements?
MGD: Ironically Supreme Court endorsed this gross violation by the ECI when a Bench comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Sanjay Khanna passed this order on 08-04-2019: “…….our considered view is that the number of EVMs that would now be subjected to verification so far as VVPAT paper trail is concerned would be 5 per Assembly Constituency or Assembly Segments in a Parliamentary Constituency instead of what is provided by Guideline No. 16.6, namely, one machine per Assembly Constituency or Assembly Segment in a Parliamentary Constituency…..” So, the SC had just increased the sample size from a microscopic 0.5% to miniscule 2 % whereas the demand was for a reasonable 30% to 50% based on sound statistical principles. E2E verifiability had thus been intentionally denied.
LRS: What other discrepancies do your organisation, and you notice in the 2024 LS elections?
MGD: The 2024 Lok Sabha elections data shows discrepancies in almost all constituencies. A close look at EC data from 543 constituencies shows that except for a few PCs like Daman & Diu, Lakshadweep and Attingal in Kerala, the number of EVM votes counted differs from that of EVM votes polled. In more than 140 PCs, the number of EVM votes counted surpassed the number of EVM votes polled. ECI is unable to give any satisfactory response to this apparent fraud.
LRS: Any other comments on the manner in which the Election Commission of India conducted itself in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, and the response which citizens need to give?
MGD: Besides blocking verifiability, the ECI’s failure to provide the total number of votes polled and the inordinate delay in sharing information that was available—it took 11 days to share the details of the first phase—has deepened the distrust. Both narrow and high victory margins need to be analysed. The electoral system is just not robust enough, and the Election Commission neither transparent nor accountable. Hence, Civil society groups must not ease the pressure on the commission. For instance, by cross-checking whether the ECI had implemented the Supreme Court’s directions to keep the symbol-loading units in strongrooms. The Supreme Court had also held that 5 per cent of the EVM units were to be verified and matched within a week of the results being declared, if the first and the second runner-up so desired (for a fee).
