BENGALURU: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has maintained silence on the issue of voter inducements in the recent Lok Sabha elections, despite the registration of over 25,000 FIRs on the issue, says Venkatesh Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi.
Nayak, who has filed Right to Information (RTI) requests with both the ECI and Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), claims that he has been stonewalled.
“The ECI is facing scrutiny but has remained silent about voter inducements on a constituency-by-constituency basis during the Lok Sabha polls in Karnataka,” he said.
Massive seizures of cash, liquor, and drugs running into crores of rupees had been reported in the state.
The RTI activist said there is a lack of transparency on critical details of the vulnerability mapping of constituencies and reports of election observers were outright refused. The refusal to disclose these documents has sparked questions about the integrity of the electoral process.
“Is the Election Commission withholding the truth from the public?” he asked. “Voter inducement is no minor offence, it’s a full-blown electoral crime. Yet, the Election Commission’s action, or lack of it, is calling into question its commitment to monitor vulnerable constituencies where voters may be swayed through illicit means.”
Nayak pointed to the Election Commission’s ‘Observer Handbook’, which outlines procedures to monitor election expenditure.
“IRS officers are appointed to each constituency specifically to keep an eye on financial irregularities, including cash, liquor, and other shady inducements. The list of these expenditure-sensitive constituencies is always shrouded in mystery,” he said.
Questioned about the secrecy, the CEO of Karnataka cited an ECI circular -- not in public domain -- that supposedly justifies the denial of information. Besides, the Central Information Commission (CIC), whose decision this circular is based on, has no trace of this ruling online, Nayak added.
While the EC claims to have appointed expenditure observers and received reports on these sensitive pockets, both the ECI and CEO Karnataka are refusing to release them. They cited Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, claiming disclosure could endanger lives or reveal the informants. Ironically, the names of expenditure observers are already public, and seizure of cash and illegal items during elections has been reported in the media.
Senior retired IAS officer MG Devasahayam, who has been waging a virtual war with the election authorities over electoral fairness, also criticized the election authorities for opacity. “What is the Election Commission hiding,” he asked.
TNIE tried to reach CEO Manoj Kumar Meena and called him thrice and also messaged him, but drew no response.