Poll worker knocks on TN Chief Electoral Officer’s house in Nilgiris plot

In a letter to Tamil Nadu’s chief electoral officer, an assistant expenditure observer (AEO) from the Nilgiris Lok Sabha seat claims that the returning officer ordered him to lower the amount that DMK candidate A Raja claimed to have spent in order to align with the candidate’s accounts.

The AEO, P Saravanan, said that his shadow observation record (SOR) revealed a disparity in spending amounting to many lakhs of rupees. The Nilgiris collector, RO M Aruna, denied the accusations, stating that Saravanan is only one of six AEOs keeping an eye on candidate spending from various places.

“I didn’t request that he document a reduced cost for the DMK contender. I reviewed each candidate’s expense report under the observers’ instructions. She said to TNIE, “I did bring up this AEO for mistakes in the record.

“Difference between the accounts of both candidates”

The candidate’s spending register, which indicated costs of Rs 13,44,012, and the SOR, which showed expenses of Rs 54,44,661 till the date of inspection on April 8, varied by Rs 41,00,649, according to A Raja’s election expenditure report.

According to the report, the candidate also requested that the amount be decided carefully and objected to the expenses included in the SOR for the purchase of brochures, flags, and microphone sets. Interestingly, the expenditure record of BJP candidate L Murugan, which indicated spending of Rs 7,66,400, differs by Rs 12,78,528 from the SOR, which shows expenses of Rs 20,44,928. The Election Commission of India has imposed a maximum spending limit of Rs 95 lakh for each candidate running for Lok Sabha.

In his April 10 letter to CEO Satyabrata Sahoo, Saravanan claimed that the expenses listed in the SOR did not match the information in Raja’s book of accounts. In an attempt to get the sum listed in the SOR lowered, he claimed that the RO had been “repeatedly harassing him” and “personally looking into each and every expenditure of that particular candidate.”

He accused the RO of serving as the candidate’s spokesperson, saying that she had forced him to look for methods to change the candidate’s spending amount in the SOR every day since the initial inspection on April 8. According to Saravanan’s letter, on April 9 “all the records of that candidate were called up to her camp office and the SOR (the heart and soul of the election expenditure watching) was forcefully received from me and photocopied and further she warned me to act under her control.” This was a “higher order of misuse of her power,” he wrote. She also threatened to murder me if something bad occurred to that applicant as a result of the expense booking.

Saravanan asked the Election Commission to step in immediately, claiming that his rights as an AEO were at risk in order to guarantee a free and fair election and that he is “encountering all sorts of troubles through the Returning Officer of The Nilgiris for not supporting her favoritism towards that party candidate.” Meanwhile, Sahoo informed TNIE that, as a result of media reporting, his office had become aware of the problem. “More actions will come after we receive reports from concerned officials,” Sahoo said.