Talk:49-O

message: This piece of junk is being forwarded through emails and 'scraps' throughout the net. But the information contained in this is partial and untrue when considered as a whole. I request the deletion of page or changing the title to 49-O hoax with a redirect, as the case may be.
Section 47.1 of HANDBOOK FOR CANDIDATES[1] released by Election Commission of India in 2007 says
"If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the Register of Voters (Form 17A) and he has put his signature/thumb impression on that register, decides not to record his vote, he shall not be forced or compelled to record his vote. A remark to the effect that he has decided not to record his vote – “Refused to Vote” - shall be made in the remarks column against the entry relating to him in the Register of Voters by the Presiding Officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark under rule 49-O. It shall not be necessary to make any change in the serial number of the elector or of any succeeding elector, in column 1 of the Register of voters."
Section 49-O of THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961 [2] released by the Ministry of Law & Justice, India says
"Elector  deciding  not  to  vote.-If  an  elector,  after  his electoral  roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in  Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon  as required  under  sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to  record  his vote,  a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form  17A  by  the  presiding  officer  and  the  signature  or  thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark."
NOWHERE it is written that, these types of votes are counted or will be a deciding factor in determining the results of the election and the concept is illogical too.
Consider the following exampleSOURCE of a constituency of 20000 voters.
Let us say the results are like this
Candidate A- 7000
Candidate B – 6999
Candidate C - 2000
NO VOTE ( under section 49-O) – 2
People who did not come to vote – 3999
Total = 20,000
In this case as per Rule above the election should be invalid ,By just 2 people deciding to exercise the said option.The whole election is declared invalid and candidates A , B , C are rejected is nonsense . On what basis is A , B and C rejected . 
--pR@tz (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''This is a hoax''' 

message: The provisions in 49-O are fine but the law is unclear about its consequences. I think a logical amendment in the law should be that in case the number of electors deciding not to vote in any constituency exceeds the numbers of votes received by all the candidates, the election should be declared null and void and a re-poll should be done. Further, any of the candidates should not be allowed to re-contest as the electors have found them not fit to be elected and rejected them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.98.9 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences of Sec 49-O 

message: The whole "Criticism" section is junk, in my unsupported but infallible opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 49-O. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607082006/http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm to http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified