Duplicate entries in voters list is a massive fraud

Lakhs of duplicate names and fake entries in the voters list for Legislative Assembly elections in Kerala is a massive fraud on the people of the State.

The initial estimates are that the number of duplicate entries, which can be used for voting by impersonation, is above four lakhs. There is also the allegation that migrant workers had been enlisted without following procedure and checking their status properly.

It is surprising that the electoral officers had not cared to check for duplicate entries at least in the same constituency not to speak of duplicate entries across constituencies. This is when computer technologies these days make it easy to find duplicate entries, though Malayalam script and variations may make it a little difficult than in English.

The existence of large number of duplicate entries came to public knowledge when Opposition Leader Ramesh Chennithala raised the issue and accused the ruling front of complicity. Apparently, he had been assisted by someone skilled in analysis and comparing of large chunks of data.

It is not surprising that the things have come to such a pass, given the lackadaisical manner in which the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), Kerala, handled data. This had not started in recent years. As back as in the nineties, total votes polled and the sum of the votes polled by individual candidates did not tally in certain cases. In one of the election reportage, published by the ECI, the numbers did not tally in more than 25 constituencies. Though this was brought to the notice of the CEO, he did not correct them and they still remain as the official tally. By 1996, computers came into use in compiling data and the figures. Data, which could not be validated, were artificially tallied by adjusting invalid and uncounted votes.

In the 2016 Assembly elections, some data in the Constituency data summary, officially released by the Election Commission (especially that of electors and votes polled), do not match with the detailed results published by ECI. There were also variations with detailed results published on the Web at the time of announcement of results.

The CEO’s Office has been reluctant to release computer-processable data, which can be used for data validation, despite an order by the State Information Commission under the RTI Act. (The accompanying image shows the operative part of the order of the Commission dated May 29 last year which is yet to be complied with). These were symptoms of deeper malady.

Despite all the improvement of communication facilities, the CEO office often has not been able to come out with correct percentage of polling on the polling day itself. The number of electors supplied before and after polling often varied as last minute enrollments and deletions were not either properly updated or were plainly incorrect.

Now, it is going to be an uphill task for the election officials to delete lakhs of duplicate and fake entries and furnish the count. There is also the issue of bogus or multiple electoral identity cards issued in the name of the same person.  It is not going to be easy to find them and destroy them.  This raises the prospect of miscarriage of the electoral verdict.

Though the irregularities could not have happened to this scale without the connivance of officials, a proper inquiry is yet to be conducted. So far action had been taken against only one official though many need to be removed from playing any role in the elections. Meanwhile Mr. Chennithala has approached the High Court seeking action.

SIC order
Operative part of the SIC order on RTI request for election data.

Information Commission orders release of video footage of polling in Kerala

The Election Commission of India and its electoral officers have been forgoing openness and transparency in the electoral process, thus undermining democratic elections in Kerala and probably elsewhere in the country. A recent order of the State Information Commission may help to restore at least some degree of transparency.

Access to Webcasting to candidates, agents and public during the Lok Sabha polls last year had resulted in detection of several cases of impersonation and bogus voting. However, when repoll were held, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Kerala restricted viewing of Webcasts to ‘election machinery’ citing a letter from the Election Commission issued in 2015. This impeded concurrent social auditing of the election process.

The letter said that the Commission had decided that henceforth, webcasting in polling stations will be restricted to viewing only by the election machinery in keeping with the spirit of Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.[ The rule actually deals with production and inspection of election papers. It specifies that used ballot papers, counterfoils et cetera and sealed control units of EVMs should not be opened or allowed to be inspected by any person or authority except under orders of a competent court. This a clause aimed at maintaining the secrecy of balloting. There is no reference to Webcasting or video footage in this clause. How the Commission could take a decision to deny real time access to web footage under this clause and how it could be in the spirit of the Rule is anybody’s guess.

Even if the decision is valid, it did not cover requests for footage under the RTI Act. However, when Advocate D. B. Binu sought the CCTV/Webcasting footage from polling booths that recorded polling percentage of more than 90%, the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) in the Office of the CEO did not release the information. He initially said that a clarification was being sought from the Commission in view of the restriction imposed by the Commission on public access. Later, he claimed that “the final list of polling booths where webcasting was done was being finalised” (sic). He added that no separate details in the manner of polling booths where 90 % and above polling was recorded was kept in that office. The appellate authority dismissed first appeal saying that the Office was awaiting clarification/permission from Election Commission of India on providing such video footage to the public.

This was when there was no provision under RTI Act giving power to the SPIO to get clarification/permission from the Commission. Moreover, the Handbook for Returning Officers had provision that copy of the video footage should be made available on payment of Rs. 50 (fees as per Right to Information Rules, 2012). Hence, the clarification sought was clearly a delaying tactics by SPIO and a clear violation of RTI Act.

The State Information Commission, in a recent order, has now directed the footage to the released. Allowing an appeal from Mr. Binu, Chief Information Commissioner Vinson M. Paul noted that the contention of the Respondent’s office that it was awaiting clarification from the Election Commission of India was not tenable under the RTI Act. Information sought tinder the Act can be denied only under Section 8 or 9 of the Act. Similarly, the argument that the Respondent office did not maintain details of polling booths, which recorded more than 90% polling, was not valid as the CEO’s office is the repository of all such information.

In response to another RTI application from the writer of this blog, the SPIO is maintaining that the reasons for malfunctioning of the electronic voting machines are not available in the CEO’s Office. As many as 434 balloting units, 391 control units and 1041 VVPATs were replaced in Kerala during Lok Sabha polls. The number of BUs and CUs replaced during the by-polls were 15 each. As many as 56 VVPATs were also replaced.

About a month after the by-elections to the Assembly in September/October 2019, the SPIO maintained that the returning officers were yet to finalise data on the polls except in the case of Pala constituency. Though the data were later released on first appeal, it was provided only in PDF format though the request was for data in excel or similar format that could be easily used for calculations.

If what the SPIO said was true, how the returning officers declared the by-poll results and Election Commission notified the winners without finalising the data?

The appeal before the State Information Commission in this case is pending.

Copy of reply from State Public Information Officer, CEO’s Office, on RTI request for election data
Reply from State Public Information Officer, CEO’s Office, on RTI request for election data- Page 2

Kerala government undermines right to information

top-secretThe Right to Information Act was enacted to bring transparency in administration and thus check corruption.

Kerala government is hitting at the very root of the legislation by exempting a branch of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau (VACB) from the purview of the Act.

A notification issued by the government a month ago excludes the “top secret section” of the Vigilance from the purview of the Act. All confidential verifications and vigilance enquiries /quick verifications of sensitive nature are done by this section of the VACB.

Those who can hide behind the notification include the Chief Minister, former Chief Ministers, Ministers, former Ministers, members of the Assembly and Parliament and all India service officers. Works related to all surprise checks inclusive that of all India service officers, Chief Minister, former chief ministers, ministers, former ministers, MLAs, MPs are also exempted.  All correspondence made by VACB with Lok Ayukta, Lok Pal, CBI and CVC in connection with any enquiry and investigation as well as all petitions which are already under enquiry/investigation by Lok Ayukta,, Lok Pal, CBI and CVC are covered under the notification.

Interestingly, the notification is issued by a government headed by a Chief Minister who has set up Web cameras in his chamber and office claiming that they would enhance transparency. (That it is a farce is another matter). Moreover, the notification is issued misinterpreting a provision of the RTI Act. Section 24(4) of the Act provides for exclusion of intelligence and security organisations from the purview of the Act. The Government has used this provision to include the ‘T’ branch of the VACB in the schedule of organisations excluded from supplying information under the Act.

But the rider is that the provision applies only to “intelligence and security organisations” notified by the government, and a vigilance bureau is neither. Even if it is accepted for argument’s sake that the VACB is intelligence or security organisation, Section 24(4) specifies that information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded. So, the notification by the government is totally in violation of the Act.

It is just aimed to help corrupt ministers and bureaucrats to buy time from public exposure just before the elections. It is notable that the LDF has not strongly come out against the notification— they are also beneficiaries of the notification.

Related: Mullaperiyar studies are public documents

Mullaperiyar studies are public documents

The Kerala State Information Commission has ordered Kerala Irrigation Department to release study reports and documents, submitted by it before the Supreme Court in the Mullaperiyar case filed by Tamil Nadu, under Right to Information Act. (See earlier post here)

The Department had refused to provide reports including the Dam Break Analysis on the ground that they were documents of “Strategic interests of the State” which were not required to be released under the RTI Act. The Commission did not uphold this contention and points raised by the Department in very detailed 70-page affidavit.

The complaint against the Department’s stand was made to the Commission as back as  in March 2012. The hearing was taken up only by the middle of 2013 and was completed by September 2013. However, the Commission took nearly six months to issue the order.

RTI

Order of State Information Commission

Earlier posts:

Mullaperiyar: behind the veil
Mullaperiyar dam break analysis: area of submergence
Mullaperiyar: strategic failure of Kerala government
K. T. Thomas and Mullaperiyar
Mullaperiyar: Directive against disclosure of dam break analysis
Mullaperiyar and Kerala’s technical studies
Conclusions of empowered committee of SC in Mullaperiyar case

Mullaperiyar and Kerala’s technical studies

Why did the empowered committee accept the studies done by Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu in preference to the finding of the professors of Indian Institute of Technology (Roorkee and Delhi)? Was it bias? Or did not it have something to do with the quality of the studies.

It is well known that some of the studies were done quickly, just months before they were to be presented before they were to be submitted to the court. The draft of the first part had come with several mistakes that  officials of the Mullaperiyar Special Cell (Kerala) had to go to Delhi to get them corrected. The second part of the seismic stability studies could not even be completed and submitted to the Supreme Court in time.

Expert-Eyes had earlier discussed the errors in the article  Mullaperiyar and environmental impact of raising the water level. Readers and experts can look at the structural stability analysis at http://expert-eyes.org/mullaperiyar/tremours/index.html

Why did the reputed experts of IIT wanted the study to be restricted to official use only. Were they avoiding public scrutiny? If one looks at the executive summary, it has more background than findings. Though Water Resources Minister P. J. Joseph had told a press conference in reply to questions that the Irrigation Design and Research Board would publish the PMF and flood routing studies on Mullaperiyar Dam done by IIT, Delhi, and Seismic Stability of Mullaperiyar Composite Dam done by IIT, Roorkee, on its Web site; it is yet to do so. The Department is also refusing to release copies of these and other studies under the Right to Information Act.

See:
Mullaperiyar: Directive against disclosure of dam break analysis
Mullaperiyar: behind the veil
IIT Roorkee seismic report has (only) value of paper says TN

 

Mullaperiyar: behind the veil

It seems that the Inter-State Waters wing of the IDRB under the Irrigation Department has something to hide regarding the way it commissioned studies and presented facts before the Supreme Court.

In the case between Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India and Others decided On: 27.02.2006, Kerala had failed to present its case properly and forcefully. This even resulted in the Mullaperiyar dam being recorded in the judgement as a masonry dam instead of as a composite dam. This weakened Kerala’s case because masonry dams, in general, have a longer life. Problems specific to Mullaperiyar, its structure, quality of the lime-surkhi mixture used and causes of weakness were never elucidated before the Court with supporting material. Kerala even failed to challenge Tamil Nadu’s contention that the waters from Mullaperiyar would be contained in Idukki reservoir in case of a failure of the former.

The judgement said: “Further, it is pertinent to note that the dam immediately in line after
Mullaperiyar dam is Idukki dam. It is the case of State of Kerala that despite the ‘copious
rain’, the Idukki reservoir is not filled to its capacity, while the capacity of reservoir is
70.500 TMC, it was filled only to the extent of 57.365 TMC. This also shows that
assuming the worst happens, more than 11 TMC water would be taken by Idukki dam.

It seems that nobody seemed to have cared to tell the Court that there are about 50000 people living between Mullaperiyar and Idukki who would be killed in case of breach of Mullaperiyar dam. (Analyses show that about 8800 houses would be submerged). Did the Court think that the area downstream of Mullaperiyar were all forests, given that the State’s arguments were all about disturbance to animals in the Periyar Tiger Reserve from raising of the water level? Why did Kerala make a case of Kerala that Idukki reservoir was filled only to the extent of 57.365 TMC, especially when the facts were to the contrary?

Kerala seems to be lackadaisical in efficiently and ably arguing the present case before the Supreme Court (filed by Tamil Nadu challenging Kerala’s law that mandated that the reservoir level of Mullaperiyar dam should not exceed 136 feet for safety reasons). Several of the studies commissioned by the IDRB were done in a hurry at the last minute. Studies like that on the Ecological Impact Assessment of Water Level Increase at Mullapperiyar Dam were full of wrong assumptions and errors.

When it commissioned a study by IIT, Roorkee, on the threat posed to the dam from earthquakes, there was hardly time to complete in time. The first draft was full of factual mistakes and none from the IDRB was willing to quickly go to Roorkee and get the errors corrected. By the time the Department forced someone to go and the final version was readied, it was too late. The Court did not accept that as the time for producing evidence was over. A dam break analysis was not in sight even then.

The dam break analysis was quickly commissioned when the Empowered Committee of the Court was seized of the matter. Though Committee’s term is about to expire, only the first part of the study is over. The IDRB is refusing to divulge the full details of the study to the public. Tactics were raised to prevent furnishing of the documents relating to the analysis and material produced before Court. I reproduce below the details of the RTI request and response of the Department.

The following documents were requested under RTI Act:

  1. Copy of dam-break analysis /inundation study for Mullaperiyar done by IIT, Delhi.
  2. Copies of submissions, statements, argument notes and affidavits made by Kerala in the Mullaperiyar case filed by Tamil Nadu (challenging Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Amendment Act) before the Supreme Court and its Empowered Committee.

The reply from the Office of Chief Engineer was as follows:

An appeal was filed against this as follows:

Roy Mathew
F-42 RBI Staff Quarters
Plammoodu, Pattom
Trivandrum 695 004

Appellate Authority under RTI Act
Office of the Chief Engineer (ISW)
IDRB, 3rd Floor, Vikas Bhavan
Trivandrum 695033

Sir,

Sub: Appeal on decision of State Information Officer on request for supply of documents regarding Mullaperiyar case, regarding,

Ref: Letter No. IDRB/ISW/AD2/2594/2010 Vol V from Public Information Officer dated February 29, 2012.

  1. The request for copy of dam break analysis is rejected on the ground that the IIT Delhi had not conducted such as a study on Mullaperiyar dam. The reference to IIT Delhi was only an error in the request which was otherwise clear. Section 5(3) of the RTI Act specifies that the PIO should render reasonable assistance to persons seeking information. So, it is imperative that the PIO should have pointed out that the study was done by IIT Roorkee and proceeded to supply the information. The PIO has thus infringed the Act in letter and spirit. Hence, I request you to order immediate supply of copy of the analysis done by IIT Roorkee.
  2. The Sections and subsection quoted by the PIO in rejecting my application for copies of submissions, statements, argument notes and affidavits made by Kerala in the Mullaperiyar case do not exist. However, I assume she is referring to sub clauses of Section 8 (1). Affidavits and other documents submitted to the court are public documents once it is filed before the court. Hence, there is no ground for rejecting my request under 8(1). Moreover, the strategic interest referred to in Section 8 Clause (1) Sub clause (a) of the Act refers to the sovereign State of India in relation to foreign States and not to states of India such as Kerala or Tamil Nadu. Section 8(1h) do not apply as no prosecution or apprehension of offenders is involved in the Mullaperiyar case.
  3. In view of these above reasons, I request you to set aside the objections raised by the PIO and order release of the information without any further delay.

 

Trivandrum                                                                                                      Yours truly

9-3-2012                                                                                                          Roy Mathew

 

The Appellate Authority did not respond directly to the points of appeal. Instead, it came up with a new argument that the dam break analysis has not been completed.

Apparently, the Department did not want the public to know how it is fighting the case and the quality of studies being commissioned by it. So, Expert-Eyes will be making efforts to bring these materials to the attention of the public. Though the Department is refusing to provide the material, we have the executive summary  and conclusions of the  dam break analysis and more at http://expert-eyes.org/mullaperiyar/index.html

Let the experts have a look at it.

 

“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.”

 Lord Northcliffe