The presence of an all-female medical room and staff contributed to that feeling of care and representation. Aditi Patil shared this enthusiasm as she voted for the first time in the PCMC. As the election was followed from afar, he saw the campaign and voting up close for the first time. “I’m very happy,” he said simply. “I hope the candidate I voted for works for the people.”

But not all voters left feeling fully confident. Aadi, a student from Apte Road, noticed what he described as worrying gaps. While he acknowledged that the staff were helpful and the EVMs ran smoothly, he was concerned about the absence of a VVPAT. “I could not see or verify that the vote I had cast was reflected in the ballot boxes,” he said. “While the EVMs worked fine, I am not completely sure without a VVPAT error.” Aadi also felt this could undermine trust. “The ink you put on people’s fingers is not standard indelible ink; it’s a simple permanent marker that can be easily removed,” he said. “These are structural issues. This is the minimum one can expect as a voter in a functioning democracy.”

Amey Ajgar, a 19-year-old student at MIT-WPU, also shared her concern over the absence of VVPAT, but acknowledged the presence of an indicator light on the EVM. However, he was deeply concerned about the unethical behavior of party representatives outside the polling stations. “When I arrived, I was practically told to vote for a particular person,” Ajgar said, surprised by the blatant disregard for the Code of Moral Conduct, with persistent campaigns right outside the centers causing riots. Other logistical problems persisted, such as a lack of parking and civic sense. Similarly, accessibility also emerged as a concern.

At a polling booth on Sinhagad Road, 21-year-old Mayur Chavan observed that while the process went smoothly, senior citizens faced difficulties. She was not allowed to help her grandmother and officials did not intervene to help her either. —With contributions from Vaishnavi Gujar, Ritesh Dhar, Advaya Apte and Swasti Jain