Poll mark error triggers turf war between SEC, Telangana high court

HYDERABAD: An error in giving out stamping sticks to voters at some polling booths during the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on Friday has snowballed into a power struggle between the State Election Commission (SEC) and the Telangana high court.
The court on Friday morning suspended an SEC circular that treated as valid those votes on which the distinguishing mark was different from the traditional mark that looks like a swastika.
Following a petition filed by K Anthony Reddy of BJP and K Surender, Justice A Abhishek Reddy allowed the counting to continue but directed the SEC and returning officers to maintain a separate account of the votes with a different mark.
The SEC, however, filed a writ petition in the evening contending that the judge’s intervention in the election, and that when the poll process had not been completed, was contrary to the Constitution. According to the SEC, it was also against Section 71 of the GHMC Act, which states that an aggrieved person can approach an election tribunal only after the election process is over. A division bench is likely to hear the matter on Saturday.
Stamping sticks given by mistake
With the election being held on paper ballot instead of EVMs, SEC had mistakenly given out stamping sticks in some booths that did not have the mandatory mark that looks like a swastika.
The authorities realised the mistake and the potential trouble this would create in a tightly fought election and replaced the sticks with the regular ones.
However, the realisation came only on polling day and that too after some voters had already voted. SEC then issued a circular, asking all officials to treat as valid votes which had distinguished marks other than swastika.
While suspending the circular, Justice Reddy said, “If the margin between the first and second candidates is too huge, far beyond these disputed votes, then you can declare the result. But if the difference is less than the number of disputed votes, then the disputed votes cannot be taken into account and the result cannot be declared.”
According to G Vidya Sagar, senior counsel representing the SEC, the circular was a mere clarification note for returning officers. The powers vested with SEC and the returning officers to earmark methods of polling and also to define ways of declaring a vote as valid or invalid are vast and cannot be interdicted by the courts, the SEC said in its appeal.