Cops stage flag march, book 44 for attacks on Africans

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd and Bharat Electronics Ltd have refused to disclose the names and contact details of the manufacturers and suppliers of various components of EVMs and VVPATs under the RTI Act citing "commercial confidence", according to RTI responses from the PSUs to an activist.

Activist Venkatesh Nayak had filed two identical Right To Information applications with the ECIL and BEL, seeking the details of the manufacturers and suppliers of various components used in the assembling of the electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPATs).

The VVPAT is an independent vote verification system which enables electors to see whether their votes have been cast correctly.

The ECIL and the BEL, public sector undertakings under the Ministry of Defence, manufacture EVMs and VVPATs for the Election Commission.

Nayak also sought a copy of the purchase orders for the components from both PSUs.

"Information sought is in commercial confidence. Hence details cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act," BEL said in its response.

A similar response was sent by ECIL which said the details requested are related to a product which is being manufactured by ECIL, and third party in nature.

"Disclosing of details will affect the Competitive position of ECIL. Hence, Exemption is claimed under section 8(1) (d) of RTI ACT, 2005," it said.

In response to the purchase order copies, ECIL's central public information officer said the information is "voluminous" which would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.

"Further, the information will give away the design details of EVM components. The same may pose a danger to the machines produced. Hence, the exemption is claimed U/s 7(9) and under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005," ECIL said.

Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure the information, including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

Section 7(9) of the Act says the information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.

"I don't know whose interests they are trying to protect against the right to know of close to a billion-strong electorate. ECIL said that disclosure of the purchase orders will reveal the design details of the components and this may pose a danger to the machines produced. ECIL did not upload even a signed copy of its reply on the RTI Online Portal," Nayak said.

He said it is reasonable to infer that the two companies are not manufacturing every single item of the EVM-VVPAT combo or else the two companies would have replied that they are manufacturing all these components internally without any outsourcing being involved.

"But the electorate is expected to take everything about the voting machines based on what the ECI is claiming in its manuals and FAQs," Nayak said.

Congress workers protested outside the home of Nilesh Kumbhani, the party's candidate from Gujarat's Surat Lok Sabha seat whose nomination form was rejected due to alleged discrepancies, as he was likely to join the BJP, sources said on Tuesday.

The protest came a day after the BJP's Mukesh Dalal was declared the winner from the party stronghold following the withdrawal of all the other eight candidates in the fray.

The sources said that the protesters called Kumbhani a "traitor" and "killer of democracy", adding that he could join the BJP as early as this week.

Kumbhani's nomination form was rejected after he was unable to present even one of his three proposers before Returning Officer Sourabh Pardhi.

The BJP had raised questions about the discrepancies in the signatures of three proposers in his nomination form.

The nomination form of Suresh Padsala, the Congress' substitute candidate from Surat, was also invalidated, pushing the party out of the poll fray in the BJP stronghold.

In his order, Pardhi said the four nomination forms submitted by Kumbhani and Padsala were rejected because at first sight, discrepancies were found in the signatures of the proposers, and they did not appear genuine.

The Lok Sabha elections in the Surat seat was supposed to take place on May 7.

Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, on Friday, said that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) plans to reintroduce electoral bonds in some capacity following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, should it come back to power in the 2024 general elections, according to a report in the Hindustan Times (HT).

HT cited Nirmala Sitharam as saying, “We still have to do a lot of consultation with stakeholders and see what is it that we have to do to make or bring in a framework which will be acceptable to all, primarily retain the level of transparency and completely remove the possibility of black money entering into this.”

However, the Centre has not yet decided whether to seek a review of the ruling made by the Supreme Court (SC), she said.

She further added, “What the scheme, which has been just thrown out by the Supreme Court, brought in was transparency. What prevailed earlier was just free-for-all.”

Launched in 2018, electoral bonds were accessible for acquisition at any State Bank of India (SBI) branch. Contributions made through this programme by corporations and even foreign entities via Indian subsidiaries received full tax exemption, while the identities of the donors remained confidential, safeguarded by both the bank and the recipient political parties.

On February 15, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the scheme, deeming it ‘unconstitutional’ due to its complete anonymisation of contributions to political parties. Additionally, the Bench stated that the articulated objectives of curbing black money or illegal election financing did not warrant disproportionately infringing upon voters’ right to information.

FM Sitharaman said, some aspects of the scheme need improvement and they will be brought back following consultations.

She also lashed out at the Opposition’s claims that the BJP disregarded criminal charges against leaders who switched from other parties to join the ruling party.

The HT quoted her as saying, “The BJP can’t sit here and say, you come to my party today, and the case will be closed tomorrow. The case has to go through the courts that have to take a call; they will not just say, “Oh, he’s come to your party, close the case.” Doesn’t happen that way. So is this washing machine a term they want to use for the courts?”

She further said that the Union government plans to simplify the process of taxation and make it easy for investments to come through into the country.