Mr Recount Minister, here are the facts of Sivaganga poll
Sandhya Jain9 Feb 2014
Verbal fisticuffs have broken out with Union Finance Minister taking umbrage at the BJP Prime Ministerial candidate referring to him as ‘recounting Minister’ at a public rally in Chennai on Saturday evening, and retaliating that Narendra Modi had staged a ‘fake encounter’ with facts. Claiming that there was no recount in the Sivaganga parliamentary constituency in 2009, P Chidambaram said the Returning Officer had rejected the request of RS Raja Kannappan (AIADMK) for a recount.
News reports of the time, however, suggest that on May 16, 2009, the AIADMK candidate Raja Kannappan was declared elected by 3555 votes at 12.30 pm, and the news was also broadcast on television. But in a dramatic reversal a few hours later, P Chidambaram was declared elected by 3354 votes at 4.30 pm, and was confirmed as the winner after a recount at 8.30 pm. This led the aggrieved Kannappan, whose followers had already burst fire crackers and distributed sweets, to file a complaint alleging that he should have won the election by 7034 votes.
The manner in which Chidambaram was declared elected caused some misgivings at the time. Kannappan had established a lead of 5536 at the end of the 14th round. The 15th round covered Alangudi Assembly segment (206 booths). There were 14 tables for the counting and hence each round covered 14 booths (serially ordered) and at the end of the 5th round (70 booths), Kannappan led by 3555 votes. That left 136 booths to be counted, but Kannappan was told (and news agencies were told) that he had won. He was not given the Winner’s certificate, but left the counting station assured of his victory.
When the stunning reversal was announced a few hours later, there were naturally allegations of mischief. Kannappan claims he should have won by 7034 votes overall. The allegation is that the votes of booths 141 to 206 were ‘flipped’ and Chidambaram declared elected by 3555 votes. This was reportedly done in XLS (Form 20 data) via three key numbers (3555, 3354, 7034); the recount only covered the Form 20 data (XLS) which confirmed Chidambaram’s victory and never took data from the EVMs.
Aggrieved, Raja Kannappan filed an election petition in the Madras High Court on June 25, 2009, alleging irregularities. He claimed that in Rounds 11-15 in Alangudi constituency, votes for him and PC were transposed, and had this not happened he should have won by 7034 votes. Unfortunately, his complaint probably did not have the full Form 20 data so it is likely that could not recreate what exactly happened; there was also a discrepancy whereby he mentioned his winning margin of 3555 votes as 3552 votes. The petition has not been decided, even though the nation is readying for the 2014 Parliamentary election.
The final judicial verdict is now only of academic interest. But it is interesting that one Raju Sundaram tweeted at 2.52 pm on May 16, 2009: P Chidambaram lost by 3555 votes. Thanks to Rajiv Gandhi (Ind) and his son Karthi C beating up reporters etc. He will be back at Ministry! . The Times of India (May 17, 2009) reported that there was high drama before Chidambaram was declared elected as Raja Kannappan was leading by over 3,000 votes when Chidambaram and his son Karti walked out of the Alagappa Chettiar College counting centre in Karaikudi a little after noon.
Then, amidst reports of a ‘reverse swing’, Chidambaram returned at 4.30 pm, “braving a shower of stones that fell on his car”. The newspaper reported that Rajiv Gandhi, an independent whose sole campaign was to defeat Chidambaram, polled around the same number of votes as the victory margin of 3,354 votes. Chidambaram left for Delhi without signing the winner’s certificate in anger at his rivals’ allegations of tampering the results. It was reported that Returning Officer Pankaj Kumar Bansal instructed officials not to give the media the results beyond the fourth round and even reporters inside the counting hall had no idea who was leading till the end of the 21 rounds of counting.
Raja Kannappan told media persons that he suspected foul play and had insisted that the result be withheld until recounting was completed (The Hindu). He said that the officials had not openly announced the total votes polled in Sivaganga (Chidambaram secured 3,34,348 votes while Kannappan got 3,30,994 votes); they also could not tally the votes polled in the Tirupattur Assembly segment. Also, they did not announce the round-wise tally and official lead at the end of each round over public address system.
Some observers had expected the Congress to win after the inclusion of Alangudi and Manamadurai Assembly segments in Sivaganga constituency after delimitation. Though Manamadurai favoured the AIADMK, Alangudi voted for Congress. Chidambaram was first declared defeated by around 3,000 votes. He then sought a recount, and after recounting in four booths of Alangudi Assembly segment, it was found that he had won, according to media reports quoting a poll official (DNA). This provoked Kannappan to demand a recount, during which his supporters clashed with the police, and the counting process had to be stopped. The AIADMK workers pointed out that after an initial lead, Chidambaram trailed his rival almost till the last rounds of polling.
Alleging a series of malpractices in his election petition, Kannappan charged that counting officials were chosen from nationalised banks in the district, which had been set up by Chidambaram when he was the Union Finance Minister; his protests were ignored by the election officials (Zee News). He charged that the results were manipulated because it became evident by the noon of May 16 that Congress was returning to power at the Centre (The Hindu, June 26, 2009)
On June 7, 2012, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed Chidambaram’s plea to dismiss the election petition against him, upheld 17 of the charges in the complaint and asked Chidambaram to face trial. The then Home Minister came up with the strange logic that the court order was a setback to the petitioner!
It is pertinent that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa wrote to the Chief Election Commissioner in 2011 that data entry operators at Sivaganga had transferred 3,400 votes polled by Kannappan from 11 polling stations in Chidambaram’s favour. This, she charged, was done at the behest of the DMK, which was then in power. The Election Commission examined the complaints of manipulation of the counting process and found that the Returning Officer had received a telephone call from the Chief Minister’s Office, but considered it insignificant.
Clearly, there is more to the controversy than an alleged fake encounter. Justice has not been done to Raja Kannappan; nor has it been seen to be done in the public eye.
( hari krishnamurthy K. HARIHARAN)"'' When people hurt you Over and Over
think of them as Sand paper.
They Scratch & hurt you,
but in the end you are polished and they are finished. ''
think of them as Sand paper.
They Scratch & hurt you,
but in the end you are polished and they are finished. ''
visit my blog http://harikrishnamurthy.wordpress.com
follow me @twitter lokakshema_hari
VISIT MY PAGE https://www.facebook.com/K.Hariharan60 AND LIKE
No comments:
Post a Comment