There are two interesting reactions related to the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) controversy in India. First, since its inception, every major political party has questioned the authenticity and efficacy of the machine. Secondly, the instrument often works as the bone of contention between the winning and the losing party, with the winning party always defending the indispensability of the machine to the democratic process and the losing alleging that the EVMs were tampered with.
However, this time, unlike the earlier developments, a US-based hacker or so-called cyber expert has claimed that EVMs in India can be easily manipulated. This has added fuel to the already existing fire of controversy on the issue.
Recently the ruling party has launched a series of awareness campaigns to develop a consensus on the issue of holding simultaneous elections in the country. Moreover, organizing simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and state assemblies is an ambitious task envisioned by the Election Commission. But the Chief Election Commissioner opined that it cannot be implemented anytime soon.
Recently, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) chaired by the Chief Justice of India gave its verdict on the criminalisation of politics. In its verdict, the SC stated that the court cannot play the role of Parliament. In this article, we will analyse everything about the criminalisation of politics and also the verdict of SC.
Social media has been playing a huge role in elections/politics these days. It can actually have an impact on the decision making of the people. In light of this fact, there is also a question arises whether this increasing role of social media in elections is good or has its own share of downsides?
This content is for Bronze , Silver , Gold and Platinum members only. Click "Register" to become a member. Click "Log in" if you are already a Member.
Log In (or) Register