2024-04-28 07:56:51
New Delhi: Amidst the Lok Sabha elections, questions are again being raised on the Election Commission regarding EVMs. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court praised the Election Commission for conducting free and fair elections for the last 70 years and expressed regret that ‘vested interest groups’ are undermining the country’s achievements. The court said that EVMs were tested 8 times and each time they were found to be flawless, yet the ADR continued to pursue its agenda. On Friday, the Supreme Court lashed out at ADR, saying that not blindly trusting any aspect of the system can create unnecessary doubts and hinder progress.
‘The performance of EVM has always been impeccable’
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta said that the performance of the EVMs has been impeccable and since its implementation, more than 118 crore voters have cast their votes and more than 4 crore VVPAT slips have been matched with the EVMs. Only one case of discrepancy has come to light in this entire process. Justice Dutta said in his separate decision, ‘Conducting elections in India is a big task. It faces many challenges, which are not seen anywhere else in the world. India is home to more than 140 crore people and has 97 crore eligible voters for the 2024 general elections, which is more than 10% of the world’s population.
‘Some groups are trying to reduce the achievements of the nation’
Justice Dutta said that what is noteworthy is that in recent years a trend has been rapidly developing by some vested interest groups, which is trying to belittle the achievements of the nation. There seems to be a concerted effort to defame, belittle and undermine the progress of this great nation on every possible front. Any such attempt should be nipped in the bud. Certainly no constitutional court will allow such an attempt to succeed unless its (the court’s) point of view is followed in the matter.
Supreme Court rained on ADR
Justice Dutta expressed doubt over the intention of NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), one of the petitioners, in seeking the return of the ‘paper ballot’ system. He said, the Election Commission has conducted fair elections for the last 70 years, which we should be proud of. This can be mainly attributed to the trust reposed in the Election Commission and the public. It is not right to raise such doubts in a healthy democracy, this court cannot allow the entire process of the ongoing general elections to be brought into question and overturned on the basis of apprehensions and speculations of the petitioners. The petitioners have neither been able to establish how the use of EVMs in elections violates the principle of free and fair elections nor have they been able to establish their fundamental right to 100% matching of VVPAT slips with the votes polled.
‘It is foolish to put the burden of matching VVPAT slips’
The Supreme Court also refused to use ballot paper again instead of EVMs. The court said it would be foolish to revert to the ballot paper system and put the burden of matching 100% VVPAT slips on the Election Commission when there are challenges in conducting elections.
Petition to conduct elections through paper ballot rejected
EVMs have proven to be trustworthy despite eight rounds of investigations by the Supreme Court in the last 10 years, as skeptics have failed to provide evidence about the possibility of them being tampered with to interfere with the mandate. Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued in the court on ADR’s petition. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta on Friday rejected a plea seeking scrapping of EVMs and reverting to paper balloting and recalled the large-scale rigging that had taken place in the past.
Supreme Court said, EVMs are simple, secure and user friendly. The inclusion of VVPAT system strengthens the principle of vote verification, thereby increasing the accountability of the electoral process. The bench criticized the NGO, saying it was trying to ‘discredit the system of voting through EVMs and thereby derail the ongoing electoral process’.