New Delhi: Results for the Lok Sabha 2024 elections are out, but the controversy around the election process persists.
In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, I first reported at The Quint on the discrepancies found between the data for the EVM votes polled and EVM votes counted.
The matter was also heard in the Supreme Court five years later in 2024, based on a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reform in 2019.
During the hearing, the Election Commission (EC) rejected all claims of discrepancies found in multiple parliamentary constituencies (PCs) during the 2019 elections, saying the petitioners and the media had considered data on the approximate number of votes polled published on the Election Commission’s App, and that was why their data did not match with the actual number of votes counted.
The 2024 Lok Sabha elections data shows discrepancies in almost all PCs. A close look at EC data from 543 PCs 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. The difference ranged between two votes in one case and 3,811 votes in another.
There are also cases of fewer votes than those that claimed to have been polled, being counted eventually. In those PCs where the number of EVM votes counted was less than the number of EVM votes polled, the highest difference was -16,791 votes.
Here are the top three PCs where a surplus of EVM votes were counted.
And here are the top three PCs where there was a deficit in the EVM votes counted.
The EC has mentioned the number of EVM votes counted and the number of postal votes counted separately. For example, here is a screenshot of the Daman and Diu election result from the EC’s website:
Screenshot from EC’s website.
Moreover, the EC released the absolute number of EVM votes polled in the 2024 election after major pushback from political parties and civil society members. For the first five phases of the election, the EC had released only the percentages of votes polled in a constituency (of the total number of electors).
On May 25, the EC released the data for the number of EVM votes polled in the first five phases, saying “any alteration in the number of votes polled is not possible”.
Screenshot from EC’s press release.
Its press note also stated that the data did not include the number of postal ballots cast.
Ibid.
A few days ago, when the chatter on X (formerly known as Twitter) began on deficits in numbers of votes counted, Uttar Pradesh’s chief electoral officer said the commission’s data may be reflecting a deficit in votes counted because in some cases, the votes polled at certain polling stations are not counted “as per the extant protocol issued by the commission and provided in various manuals and handbooks”.
He further stated that “the polling stations whose votes polled are not counted are of two categories”:
“(1) Where the Presiding Officer by mistake fails to clear the Mock Poll data from the Control Unit before starting the actual poll or he fails to remove Mock Poll slips from the VVPAT before starting the actual poll.
(2) The total votes polled in the Control Unit does not match the record of votes in Form 17-C prepared by the Presiding Officer and who records [an] incorrect number by mistake. The votes of above two categories of polling stations are counted towards the end of the counting only in the case if [the] sum total of votes polled in all such polling stations is equal to or greater than the margin between the first and the second candidate. If it is lower than the margin then the votes are not counted at all and therefore there arises a difference between total votes polled by EVMs and votes counted.”
But the EC has not issued any clarification on how more or surplus votes were counted in more than 150 PCs. How did more votes get registered in the EVMs magically after polling was over?
The EC’s explanation for why the number of EVM votes counted may have been less than the number of EVM votes cast is not completely satisfactory either, but before that, consider these four PCs where the winning margins were very slim.
First, in Mumbai North West in Maharashtra, 951,580 EVM votes were polled, but 951,582 EVM votes were counted, i.e. two surplus votes were counted. The Shiv Sena’s Ravindra Dattaram Waikar secured the lowest victory margin of a mere 48 votes, defeating Shiv Sena (UBT) candidate Amol Gajanan.
Second, in Jaipur Rural in Rajasthan, 1,238,818 EVM votes were polled but 1,237,966 EVM votes were counted, i.e. 852 votes weren’t counted. The BJP’s Rao Rajendra Singh won the seat with a slim margin of 1,615 votes.
Third, in Kanker in Chhattisgarh, 1,261,103 EVM votes were polled but 1,260,153 EVM votes were counted, i.e. 950 votes weren’t counted. The BJP’s Bhrojraj Nag won the seat with a slim margin of 1,884 votes.
Fourth, in Farrukhabad in Uttar Pradesh, 1,032,244 EVM votes were polled but 1,031,784 EVM votes were counted, i.e. 460 votes weren’t counted. The BJP’s Mukesh Rajput won the seat with a margin of 2,678 votes.
The victory margins are bigger than the deficits. So, some may think that a recount is not warranted. The UP CEO has said that when the margin is smaller than the deficit then you can have a recount. But, as the deficit is 50% of the margin (in three of these cases), it can be considered significant and is important as it reflects on the integrity of the entire process.
There is a view that candidates who lost from these seats and other seats where the winning margin was very low should demand a 100% votes count. If the EVMs malfunctioned or if there was a clerical error committed by the presiding officer then the VVPAT slips should be counted.
Despite the Uttar Pradesh chief electoral officer’s comments on deficits in the number of votes counted, other serious questions need answering:
- How could the EC explain surplus votes counted, i.e, more votes counted than were cast?
- Why is the EC not giving parliamentary constituency-wise clarifications on the deficit or surplus EVM votes counted rather than making a generic statement?
- How did he come to the conclusion that the difference between votes polled and counted is due to the non-deletion of mock poll data?
- Is the EC accepting that there were discrepancies in the number of votes polled as mentioned in Forms 17C and the number of votes recorded in control units in some PCs?
- On average, one EVM records 700 to 800 votes per polling booth. Then why is the number of deficit votes in some PCs as low as 20-30 votes?
- Why didn’t the EC count all EVM votes polled and, if needed, the VVPAT slips in places where the winning margin was very slim?
- Will the EC inform the public about how many EVMs were set aside and why?
The EC’s integrity touched its nadir during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, especially when it showed reluctance in sharing the absolute number of votes polled.
I have asked the EC about the discrepancy between the number of EVM votes polled and the number of EVM votes counted through email and X (formerly known as Twitter), but have yet to receive a response. This article will be updated as and when the EC replies.
Poonam Agarwal is a senior independent journalist, advocate and founder of the ExplainX YouTube channel.
