Supreme Court Junks Petition On 'Stop Use Of EVMs'; Asks Machines Are Not Tampered When You Win?

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition on Tuesday that sought a return to ballot paper voting in India. The petitioner, KA Paul, argued that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) could be tampered. He cited concerns raised by leaders like Chandrababu Naidu and YS Jagan Mohan Reddy. However, the court remarked that such claims arise only when these leaders lose elections.

Mr Paul also requested the Election Commission to disqualify candidates for at least five years if they are found guilty of offering money, liquor, or other incentives to voters during elections. The bench questioned his involvement in political matters, given his work with an organisation that has helped over three lakh orphans and 40 lakh widows.

Concerns Over EVM Tampering

During the hearing, Mr Paul suggested India should adopt paper ballots like the United States. He claimed EVMs threaten democracy and mentioned that even figures like Elon Musk have expressed concerns about EVM tampering. The bench asked why India should not be different from other countries.

Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar reiterated the safety and reliability of EVMs while announcing poll dates for Maharashtra and Jharkhand in October. He questioned if there is any other process in the country with as much emphasis on transparency and participation as India's election system.

Transparency in Elections

Mr Kumar highlighted that questioning EVMs often arises when election results are unfavourable. He emphasised the extensive public disclosure and participation involved in India's electoral process. "Kitna dikhayenge, kaun dikhata hai itna bataiye," he said, challenging critics to find a more transparent system.

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale expressed scepticism about Mr Paul's ideas. They noted that accusations of EVM tampering surface only when certain leaders lose elections but disappear when they win. This inconsistency led them to dismiss the petition.

The court's decision reflects its confidence in the current electoral system's integrity. It also underscores the importance of addressing concerns through evidence-based discussions rather than speculative claims.