In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the recurring skepticism surrounding Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), highlighting the inconsistency of political parties questioning their reliability only after electoral defeats. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a return to ballot papers and proposed electoral reforms, including the disqualification of candidates accused of electoral corruption.
Selective Trust in EVMs
The court observed a pattern where political leaders accept EVM results when victorious but challenge their credibility following losses. The bench remarked, "When you lose, EVMs are tampered with; when you win, EVMs are fine." This statement underscores the judiciary's concern over the politicization of EVM reliability based on electoral outcomes.
Case in Point: Andhra Pradesh Leaders
The petitioner, KA Paul, referenced statements by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu and his predecessor, Jagan Mohan Reddy, both of whom have cast doubts on EVM credibility post-defeat. The court noted that leaders who questioned EVMs after losses remained silent on their alleged flaws after securing electoral victories. The bench commented, "When Chandrababu Naidu won this time, he didnāt say EVMs could be tampered. This time, Jagan Mohan Reddy lost, he said EVMs can be tampered."
Petitioner's Arguments and Court's Response
Paul argued that India's democracy was at risk due to the alleged manipulability of EVMs and advocated for a return to paper ballots to ensure transparency and fairness. He claimed that democracy would "die" unless corrective measures were taken and raised concerns over large sums of money confiscated during elections as evidence of malpractice.
However, the court questioned the logic of linking the ballot system to these issues, asking, "How will going back to the ballot system help curb this?" The bench was unconvinced by the arguments presented, stating, "This is not the platform to argue such matters," and dismissed the plea, advising Paul to pursue his grievances through the proper forum.
Supreme Court's Stance on EVMs
This judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's earlier endorsements of EVMs. On April 26, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta affirmed the credibility of EVMs and their integration with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs), rejecting petitions that demanded 100% cross-verification of votes cast on EVMs with VVPATs or a return to the ballot paper system.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's recent observations highlight the need for consistent trust in electoral processes, irrespective of outcomes. Selective skepticism undermines the integrity of democratic institutions and processes. The judiciary's stance reinforces the credibility of EVMs and emphasizes the importance of addressing electoral grievances through appropriate legal channels rather than attributing losses to alleged technological flaws.
