Is 'not to vote' a fundamental right of the citizen? In other words, can I or you prefer 'not to vote' in an election, and record this fact in front of the Presiding Officer, if we are not satisfied with the available choices of candidates on the EVM (Electronic Voting Machine)?
Well, even if there is no such provision exist anywhere in the Constitution of India, Rule 49 O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 confers upon the voters, an option to NOT TO VOTE, if they wish so, and record this fact in the register of voters (with the Presiding Officer) so that no election fraud or misuse of voting takes place on that person's name later that day. But how many of us are aware about the existence of Rule 49 O?
Now look at the incidences recently happened.
An American computer scientist, J Alex Halderman, who had co-authored a study titled "India's EVMs are vulnerable to fraud", was not allowed to enter the country after landing at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport here on Sunday evening. Airport sources said he would be deported, but offered no reason for the action. Why? It is the big question that Central Government need to explain as they exercising power or authority in the Indian Democracy.
For the instance, if we look at this title "India's EVMs are Vulnerable to Fraud". I don't think any sort of explanation need to explore here with. On the other hand, when Congress lost in Orissa they say EVM was tampered. Where is the transparency of Congress Government? Now, Congress threatened us if we speak about EVM's and deny that evm's can be tampered. How many of us clearly known to the fact of Right to Reject is section 49 O? So what is the Rule 49 O says?
What do you think about it? To Vote OR Not To Vote?
Article Source :
1. US prof behind EVM study deported on arrival
2. Rule 49 O of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961
3. Press Note : Rule 49 O
