Saikia took his worries about the strongroom security in Sivasagar to T L R Reddy, the election observer, saying the usual security steps aren’t being done. The administration has denied this, causing a firm dispute over whether they are sticking to the Election Commission of India’s directions before the vote counting.
Congress flags alleged lapses in Sivasagar strongroom
Saikia wrote to Reddy that the main strongroom at Sivasagar Government Boys’ HS & MP School isn’t being secured properly. He says this breaks the important security rules that are meant to protect the voting information.
Specifically, Saikia says rooms 12 and 15 aren’t using the Election Commission’s required two-lock system. Photos, he says, show two doors on one side with just one padlock and a seal, and another door that seems to be locked from the inside. This means someone could get in on their own.
He also says there aren’t enough people watching over the place and doing surveillance. In his letter, Saikia said he couldn’t see any CAPF (Central Armed Police Force) or police officers along the hallway and no CCTV cameras were on when he visited, even though they’re supposed to be recording everything all the time.
Photos, timelines, and the constituencies involved
Saikia shared pictures from inside the strongroom which show materials from three areas: Demow (95), Sivasagar (96), and Nazira (97). He believes the simple locks on the doors near where the voting machines are kept don’t provide enough security for the inner part of the strongroom.
He is also unhappy with a statement from the district administration (and a version of that statement on the ‘Moi Sivasagar’ Facebook page) which said his concerns were unfounded and that no official complaint had been made. Saikia says he sent details of the security issues to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chief Election Commissioner on April 14th.
The District Election Officer dismissed Saikia’s initial complaints on April 15th. The election in the state happened on April 9th and counting will be on May 4th, which means everyone is looking at how and where the votes are being stored and protected.
District administration’s response and safeguards cited
The District Election Officer says all the strongrooms with the voting machines were locked on the morning of April 10th while the general observer, the DEO, senior police, returning officers, and representatives from the political parties were present. They say the strongrooms have CCTV cameras on them 24/7, CAPF and state police are guarding them, and a record is kept.
The administration added that, as is normally allowed, party agents can watch over things and that at the time of their statement, no complaints had been received. They also explained what the rooms nearby are for.
According to the DEO, rooms t0, 11, 13 and 16 are used for office work and storing extra materials like bags, posters, empty boxes, and parts of the voting booths. Because these rooms aren’t covered by the Election Commission’s strongroom rules from July 18, 2023, they only had a simple lock and key at first.
However, the DEO said that, because of Saikia’s claims, those rooms have now also been locked and sealed with party representatives present, and are being watched by CCTV.
What ECI guidelines require on strongroom security
The Election Commission’s rules say a strongroom should only have one entrance and have a two-lock system, with each lock’s key held by the returning officer and assistant returning officer. This is to make sure no one person can get to the voting machines and election papers alone.
Security should have many layers: the CAPF should protect the most important area of the strongroom, and the state armed police should protect the outer area. CCTV cameras should record everything, including the sealed doors and hallways, and parties should be able to have people watching. A log of who enters, checks of the seals, and a schedule of the guards are all standard practice.
The rules also make a difference between the strongrooms where the actual voting machines are kept and rooms for other materials which aren’t as important. While the rooms for the other materials don’t need to be as secure, they shouldn’t affect the safe path to the strongrooms.
Why the dispute matters and possible next steps
This argument shows how important it is to have an election process that is fair and seems fair. Even if the procedures are being followed, anything that looks wrong or isn’t clear about the difference between the strongrooms and storage rooms can make candidates and voters lose confidence.
To solve this, the observer could order a video recording of a joint inspection with people from all the parties, looking at the CCTV footage and confirming the locks and seals match the guard schedule and logbook. Saying clearly that everything is okay would reassure everyone involved.
They could also do more: make sure signs clearly show which rooms are the strongrooms and which are storage, show the updated guard schedule, make sure the CCTV is always working and has a backup, and let the candidates watch the surveillance as the rules allow.
As counting gets closer, a clear and jointly checked review of the security at the Sivasagar location would stop arguments from starting, make sure what’s happening locally matches the Election Commission’s rules, and keep the public’s faith in the final results.
