A total of 504,313 votes were found to have been cast in excess of the total votes cast in the recently concluded Maharashtra assembly elections 2024, showing discrepancies between the votes counted and the votes polled, The Wire reported.
According to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the voter turnout was 66.05%, representing a total of 64,088,195 votes polled, including 30,649,318 female voters, 33,437,057 male voters, and 1,820 others. However, the total votes counted were 64,592,508, exceeding the polled votes by 504,313.
These discrepancies occurred across the state, with 280 constituencies recording more votes counted than polled, while eight constituencies reported fewer votes counted. The most significant mismatches were observed in the Ashti constituency, where 4,538 more votes were counted than polled, and in Osmanabad, where the difference was 4,155 votes.
This issue mirrors concerns raised during the May 2024 Lok Sabha elections, where discrepancies were noted between initial and final voter turnout figures. At the time, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) had petitioned the Supreme Court to mandate the release of polling station-wise turnout data within 48 hours of each polling phase.
The Court, however, declined the request, citing logistical challenges, the potential misuse of data, and the lack of a statutory requirement for such disclosures. The ECI had argued that while Form 17C data, which records votes polled at each station, is shared with candidates’ agents, it is not intended for public dissemination.
The current discrepancies bring renewed attention to the need for transparency and robust data verification in the electoral process. The ECI has previously attributed such mismatches to the updating and reconciliation of data. However, the recurrence of these issues raises concerns about the reliability of data collection and auditing methods, particularly in close contests where small margins can determine the outcome.
For instance, in the Nawapur (Scheduled Tribe) constituency, 2,40,022 votes were polled, yet 2,41,193 votes were counted, a discrepancy of 1,171 votes. This is significant as the winning margin in the constituency was 1,122 votes. Conversely, in Maval, 2,80,319 votes were polled, but the count reflected 2,79,081 votes, showing 1,238 fewer votes. These examples highlight how such discrepancies, even if unintentional, can influence election results.
Discrepancies could stem from clerical errors, data entry issues, or technical malfunctions involving Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems. Regardless of the cause, they underscore the need for rigorous auditing and greater transparency in election data management. The absence of detailed, publicly available polling station data complicates efforts to verify the accuracy of results and address public concerns.
The average discrepancy between votes polled and counted across constituencies was approximately 1,751 votes, with a median of 1,710 votes and a standard deviation of 956 votes.