Haryana news: Bhupinder Hooda mum on naming MLAs who cross-voted
Congress high command has been sounded, says Rao Narender Singh
As many as five Haryana Congress MLAs cross-voted in favour of Independent candidate Satish Nandal, and four of the party's votes were declared invalid. Despite these setbacks, the party’s candidate, Karamvir Singh Boudh, emerged victorious by a whisker.
Throughout the day, the party leaders remained tight-lipped on those who cross-voted. Only Leader of the Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda, and state incharge BK Hariprasad know the names. They were discussed among the Hooda camp MLAs, and from there, the names started floating on social media. However, there has been no official announcement.
Related news:
Rajya Sabha poll row triggers chaos in Haryana Assembly, Congress stages walkout
Haryana CM Nayab Saini rejects ‘vote theft’ charge, mocks Congress’ ‘Kufri retreat’
Hooda’s Himachal strategy delivers nail-biting Haryana Rajya Sabha victory
When contacted, Haryana Congress president Rao Narender Singh said, “We have informed the high command about the names. Soon, disciplinary action will be initiated against them.” He admitted that Ram Kishan Gujjar, working president of the state unit and husband of Naraingarh two-time MLA Shalley Chaudhary, had resigned.
There is an open ballot system in the Rajya Sabha polls. An MLA cannot be disqualified from the Vidhan Sabha for cross-voting, but the MLAs have to show their ballots to authorised agents. In the Congress case, Hooda saw all the ballots. When questioned during a media briefing, he did not reveal the names.
Dots led to invalidation
Four of Congress's votes were declared invalid. Tohana MLA Paramvir Singh’s vote was invalidated due to an alleged breach of secrecy. The other three votes had a dot on the ballot papers. “We acted as per the rules in a fair and transparent manner,” said Returning Officer (RO).
Citing rules, counting agent of Congress candidate BB Batra said, “The Supreme Court has held in Shradha Devi Vs. Krishna Chandra Pant stated that the mark or writing which would invalidate the ballot paper must be such as to itself unerringly point in the direction of or reasonably give an indication of the identity of the voter. There must be some causal connection between the mark and the voter's identity, such that, by looking at one, the other becomes revealed. In the absence of such a suggested mark or writing, the ballot paper cannot be rejected merely because there is some mark or writing.”
He claimed that "our votes were wrongly invalidated by the RO".
