Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the reintroduction of ballot papers and additional electoral reforms, including disqualifying candidates accused of corruption. The Court criticised the tendency of political leaders to question the credibility of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) only after electoral losses while accepting their reliability when victorious, reaffirming the machines’ credibility.
The PIL, filed by petitioner KA Paul, argued that EVMs are susceptible to manipulation, posing a threat to Indian democracy. The petitioner cited statements from Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu and his predecessor Jagan Mohan Reddy, both raised concerns about EVM reliability after losing elections. The plea sought a return to ballot papers and alleged financial improprieties involving industrialists and political parties. It also highlighted low voter turnout, alleging that measures to increase participation were inadequate.
During the hearing, Paul referenced instances of significant sums of money allegedly influencing elections and claimed this demonstrated a lack of transparency in the current system. He even referred to statements purportedly made by Tesla CEO Elon Musk regarding the potential manipulability of EVMs. The petitioner argued for reverting to a paper ballot system to restore electoral integrity.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice P.B Varale criticised the inconsistency in political leaders’ stances on EVMs, remarking, “When you lose, EVMs are tampered with… when you win, EVMs are fine”. The court noted that such selective criticism undermines public confidence in the electoral process. Highlighting examples, the bench observed that leaders who benefited from EVM results did not raise concerns about their reliability.
The Court found no merit in the argument that reverting to the ballot paper system would address allegations of malpractice or increase voter turnout. “How will going back to the ballot system help curb this?”, the bench questioned. On allegations of financial misconduct during elections, the Court stated, “We have not seen or offered any money for casting votes. We don’t know how this money is given”.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the PIL was not the appropriate forum for addressing these concerns. It advised the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities through proper channels while dismissing the plea.
The order aligns with the Supreme Court’s consistent position on EVM reliability. Earlier this year, the court upheld the Election Commission of India’s safeguards against tampering and reiterated the machines' role in ensuring free and fair elections. The bench noted that no credible evidence of EVM tampering has ever been produced, and the Election Commission’s protocols remain robust and transparent. While debates over EVMs continue, the court emphasized the need for evidence-based approaches rather than politically motivated rhetoric.
Picture Source :