Today( on 10th April), Supreme Court rejects plea for breathalyser tests on voters at polling stations during elections. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta dismiss the petition, terming it ‘publicity interest litigation’.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today( on 10th April), the Supreme Court rejected a petition pushing for the introduction of a breathalyser examination for voters standing in lines at polling stations during elections. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, presiding over the bench, refused to intervene with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, labeling it as a form of “publicity interest litigation.”
The legal representative for the Andhra Pradesh chapter of the Janavahini Party contended that, considering the model code of conduct, no voter ought to be permitted to vote while under the influence of alcohol.
However, the bench responded skeptically, questioning the motive behind the plea, stating-
“What is this? It’s simply for publicity. Polling day is a dry day with police presence all around. We won’t consider this. Case dismissed.”
The Andhra Pradesh unit of the Janavahini Party initially approached the high court with the plea, which was subsequently dismissed on February 28. The high court noted that the petitioner had failed to cite any specific legal provision that would make it mandatory for the Election Commission of India to subject every person entering a polling booth to a breathalyser test before casting their vote.
The political party has raised concerns about the Election Commission’s inaction regarding their representation, submitted on January 6, requesting the implementation of breathalyser tests at the entry point of queues in every polling booth. They propose that only voters uninfluenced by alcohol should be allowed to exercise their voting rights.
In their plea, the Janavahini Party has sought a directive from the court to compel the Election Commission to arrange for breathalyser tests at the entry point of polling booth queues. Their objective is to ensure that only voters who are not under the influence of alcohol can exercise their right to vote.
While the Supreme Court has dismissed the plea, it brings to light an important issue: the impact of alcohol on the electoral process. The Janavahini Party’s concerns stem from a desire to maintain a fair and unbiased voting environment. However, the court has determined that the existing measures taken by the Election Commission, such as the deployment of police personnel on dry days, are sufficient to address any potential issues.
Adherence to the model code of conduct during elections is essential for both political parties and citizens. This code safeguards the integrity of the democratic process and fosters fairness among all candidates. The Supreme Court’s rejection of the petition emphasizes the importance of adhering to established norms and regulations.
ALSO READ: Lok Sabha Election 2024||Calcutta HC Permits Government Doctor’s Resignation for Election Candidacy
Moving forward, it is essential for political parties to explore other avenues for addressing concerns related to alcohol influence during elections. Engaging in constructive dialogue with the Election Commission and proposing alternative solutions can lead to a more inclusive and transparent electoral system.
