The Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Anr. that mere suspicion of a mismatch in votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), led to a demand for 100% Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips verification, is not a sufficient ground for maintaining the current set of writ petitions.
Background: Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. Case
This case revolves around petitions challenging the use of EVMs in Indian elections. The petitioners did not allege any ill-intent or malfeasance on the part of the Election Commission of India (ECI) or claim that the EVMs were rigged to favour any candidate or party. However, they argued that the potential for manipulating EVMs creates suspicion and erodes voter confidence.
The petitioners proposed alternatives such as reverting to the paper ballot system, allowing voters to verify and deposit the printed VVPAT slip in a ballot box for counting, or 100% counting of VVPAT slips in addition to electronic counting. They asserted that voters have a fundamental right to know that their vote has been correctly registered.
Court’s Observations
The court noted that a rigorous system of checks and balances with EVMs and VVPATs is in place to prevent any possible miscount of votes and to assure voters that their vote has been counted as recorded. This system is deemed more satisfactory than the previous paper ballot system.
The court clarified that writ petitions based on mere suspicion that a right could be infringed should not be entertained. There must be credible evidence of a real threat to a right for a writ petition to be maintainable.
The Doctrine of Res judicata applies to writ petitions as well. The court can dismiss a petition at the outset if the issue has been conclusively decided earlier unless substantial new grounds not previously raised are presented.
On the specific issue of doubting the efficacy of EVMs, the court observed that this has been raised before and needs to be definitively concluded now. Regressive measures like reverting to paper ballots cannot be adopted unless substantial evidence is presented against EVMs.
The court stressed the need to maintain a balanced perspective, avoid blindly distrusting any part of the system, and adopt a critical yet constructive approach guided by evidence and reason to allow for meaningful improvements while ensuring the system’s credibility.
The court expressed hope and trust that the existing system will not fail the electorate, and the mandate of voters will be truly reflected in the votes cast and counted through the robust democratic process.
Legal Provisions Related to Electronic Voting Machines
The concept of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) was first conceived in 1977, and a prototype was developed in 1979 by Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL). After political consensus, EVMs were used on a pilot basis in 1982 for an election in Kerala.
However, this usage was challenged in the case of A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984), and the Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission couldn’t override laws and use EVMs without legal provisions.
Following the Supreme Court’s 1984 judgment, the government amended the Representation of the People Act in 1989 by inserting Section 61A to provide legal sanction for using EVMs. The constitutional validity of this amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Chief Election Commissioner (2001).
Several provisions were added to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 related to the usage of EVMs like fresh polls due to EVM failure.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article was written and submitted by Devam Krishnan during his course of internship at B&B Associates LLP. Devam is a 4th-year BB.A.LL.B student at NUSRL, Rachi.
