EVMs Emerge Supreme in The Supreme Court

In a significant ruling last Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition advocating for a return to paper ballot voting in Indian elections, reinforcing its stance on the integrity of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale, highlighted the pattern of allegations surrounding EVM tampering, which seemingly arise only when candidates or their parties face electoral defeat.
The court noted that the narrative around EVM tampering often emerges prominently in the aftermath of electoral losses. “What happens is, when you win the election, EVMs are not tampered with. When you lose the election, EVMs are tampered with,” remarked the bench, pointing out the inconsistency in claims made by losing candidates.
The context of the ruling comes amidst a backdrop of scepticism towards EVMs, particularly from certain political leaders. The court referenced notable instances, mentioning how allegations of tampering arose from prominent figures in politics such as Chandrababu Naidu and Jagan Mohan Reddy, depending on the outcomes of their respective elections.
This pattern of blame-shifting towards the voting technology casts doubt on the sincerity of the allegations, prompting the court to label such suspicions as “unfounded.”
During the hearing, the petitioner drew comparisons to international election practices, asserting that many countries have reverted to paper ballots for voting. However, the judges posed a critical question regarding the uniqueness of India’s electoral system: “Why don’t you want to be different from the rest of the world?” This rhetorical inquiry underscores a significant point—elections across the globe are increasingly adopting technology to streamline the voting process, with EVMs being a notable example of such advancements.
The Supreme Court has previously dismissed multiple petitions aimed at abandoning EVMs for paper ballots, reinforcing its belief in the security and reliability of the electronic system. The court emphasized that EVMs have effectively minimized issues such as booth capturing and bogus voting, thus enhancing the democratic process.
While the ruling upheld the use of EVMs, it did create a limited provision for aggrieved candidates. The court indicated its willingness to allow candidates who secure second or third place in election results to request verification of the microcontroller chips embedded in 5% of the EVMs within their respective assembly constituencies. This provision aims to bolster transparency and address concerns, albeit on a restricted basis, by ensuring that there is a way to reassure candidates about the election process should doubts arise.
As electoral technology continues to evolve, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of maintaining trust in the voting mechanism.
The challenge lies in balancing technological advancements with public confidence in the electoral process. Moving forward, it is imperative for political entities and stakeholders to work collaboratively to foster a culture of trust in the electoral infrastructure, particularly as India approaches future elections. The conversation around EVMs and their efficacy is bound to continue, but the court’s ruling sets a clear precedent that the judiciary stands firmly behind the electronic voting system in India’s democracy.