Fact Check: Viral WhatsApp message "tender vote", "challenge vote" misleading; details here
New Delhi: A message circulating on WhatsApp is spreading false claims about the voting process in India, particularly regarding the concepts of "challenge vote" and "tender vote." The message advises voters to show their Aadhar card or voter ID and request a "challenge vote" if their name is not on the voter list, which is not true. Any person whose name is not on the electoral rolls cannot vote.
The message also incorrectly describes the concept of "challenged vote," which is when polling agents challenge the identity of a voter, and the presiding officer holds an inquiry into the challenge.
The concept of "challenge vote" does not exist under section 49A of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961, as described in the message. The section, in reality, pertains to the design of electronic voting machines.
Regarding the claim that if someone finds that their vote has already been cast, they can request a "tender vote," this claim is true. Under section 42 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, a person representing themselves as a particular elector can apply for a "tendered ballot paper" if another person has already voted as such an elector. They will be entitled to mark a ballot paper in the same manner as any other elector.
However, the claim that any polling booth recording more than 14% tender votes will trigger a repoll is false. Tendered votes are only considered when they are likely to affect the outcome of the election, such as when the margin of victory is less than the number of tendered votes. The Election Commission handbook also does not mention any specific percentage for triggering a repoll, so the figure of 14% is unfounded.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) spokesperson, Sheyphali Sharan, had earlier confirmed that a person whose name is missing from the voter list cannot vote. Therefore, the claim that voters can ask for a "challenge vote" using their Aadhar card or voter ID is misleading and false. The ECI advises voters to check their names on the electoral rolls before Election Day and update them if necessary.
Misinformation and false claims about the voting process can impact voter confidence and discourage people from exercising their right to vote. Therefore, it is essential to fact-check and verify information before sharing it with others. Voters can contact their local election officials or the Election Commission of India to clarify any doubts or queries about the voting process.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Cow has unique status, its slaughter can have repercussions on peace: Punjab and Haryana HC
Chandigarh (PTI): The cow is a pious animal and "certain acts" can severely impact peace when they offend beliefs of a "significant population group", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said while dismissing the anticipatory bail given to a Nuh resident accused of transporting cows for slaughter.
Asif was booked along with two others in April this year under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, for allegedly transporting cows to Rajasthan for slaughter.
"The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society," Justice Sandeep Moudgil said in an order earlier this month. It was made public on Monday.
"This court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that in a pluralistic society like ours, certain acts, while otherwise private, can have severe repercussions on public peace when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group," the court said.
The cow is not only a pious animal but also an integral part of India's agrarian economy, the judge said.
According to the state counsel, the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence of cow slaughter. Therefore, his custodial interrogation was imperative for a fair and effective investigation, he submitted.
The court said the Constitution does not merely protect rights in abstraction but seeks to build a just, compassionate, and cohesive society.
"Article 51A(g) Constitution of India enjoins every citizen to show compassion to all living creatures. It is in this context that the alleged act of cow slaughter committed repeatedly, deliberately, and provocatively strikes at the core of constitutional morality and social order," said the order.
The court observed that the offence alleged in the present FIR deals with the allegation of slaughtering a cow in conscious defiance of existing law and in utter disregard to the sentiments of the community at large.
'It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is not a first time offender. He is alleged to have previously been involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences.
"In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected," said the court order.
Anticipatory bail, it said, is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest, not to provide sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity.
Protection of pre-arrest bail should not be granted when the applicant has been shown to be a habitual offender or where his custodial interrogation is necessary for fair investigation, it said.
The court also cited the Supreme Court verdict in the 2005 State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case that upheld the constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibitory laws and recognised the constitutional directive under Article 48 of the Constitution as reflecting the moral and economic ethos of society.
While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Moudgil also observed that the court is conscious of the need to safeguard individual liberty.
"But where such liberty is demonstrably misused, and where the petitioner's conduct is indicative of recidivism, the law must respond with firmness. The right to bail is not to be confused with the right to impunity," according to the order.
"Considering the serious nature of the allegations involving offences of moral turpitude, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a likelihood of reoffending, this court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail," it said.
