Anagha Kolhe,an independent candidate contesting the upcoming civic elections,has moved the Bombay High Court alleging that the State Election Commission (SEC) did not abide by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act,1888,in scheduling the elections on February 16. Kolhe,who filed her nomination from Bhandup,contended that according to the Act,the election can be held only 21 days after the last date of accepting election candidates nomination forms. Since the last date of accepting nominations was January 31,the election should have been held on February 21 and not February 16,she stated. The SEC has,however,stated that the mandatory 21-day gap between filing of nominations and the election was observed from January 24,the first day of accepting nominations,and not January 31. Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice N M Jamdar have asked the SEC to point out the provision under the Representation of People Act,1951,that support its stance. The court also asked for earlier court rulings concerning the issue. The case will be heard further on Thursday. Kolhe also contended that the independent candidates who were assigned their symbols on February 6 will effectively have only nine days to campaign. This,she stated,would be discriminatory as political parties which started their election campaigns much earlier would have an edge over independent candidates. Voter can use end button for choosing no one: Poll panel The State Election Commission (SEC) on Wednesday told the Bombay High Court that the present system of negative voting does not dilute the efficacy of the order through which it was brought into force. Appearing for the commission,lawyer Sachindra Shetye informed the court that the state government had issued a circular last December which provided for an end button in the electronic voting machines (EVMs). Shetye said that the button can be used in cases where the voter does not want to vote for a particular candidate. However,the object of the button is to ready the machine for the next voter,he said. The statements were made in response to a PIL which demanded that EVMs should have an in-built provision for a negative vote. Arguing for the petitioner,lawyer S M Gorwadkar said the principal grievance still remains as voters would still have to fill up a form for negative voting. The judges have now asked the petitioner to amend his plea to specifically challenge the provision pertaining to negative voting.
