The Supreme Court Today (Nov 26) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking the reintroduction of the physical/ paper ballot voting system in elections, along with several other electoral reforms. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale found little weight in the petitioner’s argument that even leaders like Chandrababu Naidu and YS Jagan Mohan Reddy had questioned Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) tampering.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Monday, which sought the reintroduction of the physical paper ballot system in elections, alongside other electoral reforms.
The petition, filed by Evangelist Dr. KA Paul, raised concerns about the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and proposed reforms aimed at strengthening India’s democratic process.
Supreme Court’s Verdict and Observations
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale found little merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. Responding to claims that political leaders Chandrababu Naidu and YS Jagan Mohan Reddy had questioned EVM tampering, the Court remarked:
“When Chandrababu Naidu or Mr Reddy lost, they say that EVMs are tampered. When they won, they don’t say anything. How can we see this? We are dismissing this. This is not the place where you argue all of this.”
The Court underscored that the petition lacked substantial evidence or reasoning to support its claims.
Petitioner’s Arguments and Concerns
Dr. KA Paul argued that EVMs pose a potential threat to the integrity of India’s electoral process, suggesting that India adopt physical ballot systems similar to those used in countries like the United States.
He contended that EVMs could be tampered with, claiming that even global figures like Elon Musk had expressed concerns about their reliability.
In addition, he alleged that several political leaders, including Chandrababu Naidu and Jagan Mohan Reddy, had supported the view that EVMs are vulnerable to tampering.
Broader Electoral Concerns Raised by the Petitioner
Beyond the demand for a return to paper ballots, Dr. Paul highlighted broader issues related to electoral reform and suggested several measures for the improvement of India’s election system. These included:
- Disqualification of Candidates Involved in Malpractices: He proposed a five-year disqualification for candidates found distributing money or liquor to influence voters and called for a comprehensive policy to curb such practices.
- Voter Education Programs: Dr. Paul emphasized the importance of educating citizens about the electoral process to increase voter participation.
- Investigative Mechanisms for Party Funding: He recommended the establishment of investigative machinery to scrutinize political party funding and ensure transparency.
- Framework to Prevent Election-Related Violence: He advocated for a robust policy to prevent violence during elections, ensuring a safer voting environment.
The Court’s Position
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, reaffirmed its trust in the existing electoral system and emphasized that unsubstantiated claims and broad generalizations are insufficient grounds for judicial intervention.
Conclusion
The dismissal of this PIL by the Supreme Court reiterates the importance of evidence-based arguments when questioning India’s democratic processes.
While the petitioner raised valid concerns about electoral transparency and voter participation, the Court’s decision reflects its confidence in the current mechanisms and its reluctance to entertain speculative claims.
The debate surrounding EVMs and electoral reforms remains a significant topic in India, but meaningful progress will likely require a balanced approach involving evidence-backed discussions and collaborative efforts between stakeholders.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Paper Ballot
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
