Source:- thequint.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A petition has been filed by Rupesh Behera, a voter, in the Odisha High Court regarding the discrepancies in the number of EVM votes polled and counted in the Kantabanji Assembly constituency that went to polls on 18 April 2019. In Odisha, the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections were simultaneously conducted by the Election Commission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petition says that the recorded number of EVM votes polled in Kantabanji Assembly Constituency was\u00a01,82,411<\/strong>\u00a0while the number of EVM votes counted was\u00a01,91,077<\/strong>. A discrepancy of\u00a08,666<\/strong>\u00a0EVM votes was registered by the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EVM votes polled data was shared with the candidates on polling day. The petition says, \u201cThe returning officer after compiling the data of voter turnout in each booth of the constituency, furnished by the Presiding Officers of each booth, prepared a booth wise male, female and other voters turnout list and supplied the same to all the candidates contesting in the election through WhatsApp under the \u2018Contesting Candidate\u2019 ID.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The above screenshot is annexed with the petition that reveals that one of the candidates of Kantabanji constituency received a WhatsApp message on EVM voter turnout data the day after polling. It shows that the male voter turnout was 90,629, female voter turnout was 91,782 and total number of votes polled was 1,82,411<\/strong>while the voter turnout was 65.2%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EC\u2019s website shows, however, that the number of EVM votes counted on counting day, 23 May, is\u00a01,91,077.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Congress candidate Santosh Singh Saluja won the seat, defeating his nearest rival by a mere 144 EVM votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petition mentions that on counting day, the \u201ccontesting candidates complained before the returning officer\u201d but it \u201cfell into the deaf ears\u201d (sic). The officers allegedly ignored the complaint of 8,666 surplus EVM votes and declared the results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner has also alleged that \u201cElection Commission of India with a malafide intention after knowing from the returning officer about candidates\u2019 complaint\u201d changed the data on their website in \u201cVoter Turnout\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Quint<\/strong>\u00a0in its article published on 31 May, had reported the discrepancies in the EVM votes polled and counted in over\u00a0370 Parliamentary constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In another article published on 11 June, we have pointed out how the EC has changed the\u00a0EVM votes polled data\u00a0at least 4 times in a month, ever since questions have been raised on the difference in EVM votes polled and counted.\u201cThe petitioner met the EC officers several times pointing out the discrepancies but they refused to acknowledge his complaint. In fact, EC\u2019s website reflected the voter turnout for Kantibhanji as 1,82,411 EVM votes, even after the results were declared on 23-24 May. EC corrected it only after they got to know that we are filing a petition in the HC.\u201d <\/p>\n