The viral WhatsApp forward on 'Challenge vote' and 'tender vote' is hoax

Vartha Bharati | 16-04-2019 | 20:49:00 IST

Election Commission of India

A viral message aiming to make people aware about their voting rights has been floating around on social media.

The message reads:
? When you reach poling booth and find that your name is not in voter list, just show your Aadhar card or voter ID and ask for " challenge vote" under section 49A and cast your vote.

? If you find that someone has already cast your vote, then ask for "tender vote" and cast your vote.

?If any polling booth records more than 14% tender votes, repolling will be conducted in such poling booth.

? Please share this very important message with maximum groups and friends as everyone should aware of their right to vote.

TRUE OR FALSE ?

The Quint found out that the claims made in the viral message are only partly correct.

The first pointer in the post says “If your name is not in voter list, just show your Aadhar card or voter ID and ask for challenge vote under section 49A and cast your vote.”

This is false. When a person’s name is not on the voting list, they simply can’t vote. The ECI issues the Voter ID card to citizens after their names have successfully been included in the electoral rolls of their constituency. Just because one has their Voter ID Card does not mean that that they will definitely be allowed to vote – because it is mandatory their name should appear in the electoral roll for them to vote.

The message mentions something called a ‘challenge vote’, and falsely quotes section 49A.

The Handbook for Presiding Officers, however, does indeed mention a ‘Challenged Vote’ .

A ‘Challenged vote’ is where the polling agents challenge the identity of an elector and the presiding officer holds an inquiry into the challenge.

Meanwhile, section 49A in the ‘Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961’ describes the ‘Design of Electronic Voting Machines’, and has nothing to do with ‘challenge vote’.

The second sentence point in the viral message states “If you find that someone has already cast your vote, then ask for ‘tender vote’ and cast your vote.”

This is true. According to Rule 42 of The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, if the Polling Officer tells a person that their vote has already been cast, then one should immediately bring this to the attention of the Presiding Officer. In such a case, the Presiding Officer may ask questions to confirm one’s identity.

Once s/he is convinced that their identity is genuine, he or she will provide a tendered ballot paper and one can cast a ‘Tendered Vote’

A tendered ballot paper is the same as the ballot paper displayed on the balloting unit, except that it will be endorsed (either stamped or written) with the words ‘Tendered Ballot Paper’ on the back.

The message lastly mentions “If any polling booth records more than 14% tender votes, repolling will be conducted in such poling booth.”

This statement is false. Speaking to The Quint, Padma Angmo, Director, ECI, clarified that tendered votes will be taken into account only on the direction of a High Court.

“Courts have said that tendered votes should be taken into account only when they are likely to affect the outcome of the election, ie, when the margin of victory is less than the number of tendered votes,” she said.

Courtesy: The Quint

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.

Comments

comments powered by Disqus.

Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely

15-12-2025 ¦ 15-12-2025 IST

Image Credit: madhyamamonline.com

New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.

Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.

The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.

At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.

Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.

According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.

The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.

At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it

The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.

Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.

Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.

According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.

Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.

Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.

Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.

He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.

DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.

Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”