The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition seeking re-elections in twenty Haryana assembly seats due to alleged discrepancies in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The court deemed the plea frivolous, emphasizing the need for solid evidence in electoral disputes while warning the petitioners about potential costs for such unfounded claims.
New Delhi: In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a petition seeking directions for re-elections in twenty assembly seats in Haryana. The petitioners alleged suspicious results and discrepancies in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used during the elections. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, deemed the petition as frivolous and not worthy of consideration.
The Court’s Firm Stand
During the hearing, the Supreme Court articulated its unwillingness to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. “We are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed,” the court stated clearly. The court further criticized the timing of the plea, noting that it sought to undermine a government set to take the oath of office that same day.
The bench also cautioned the petitioners about potential costs, indicating that pursuing such claims without substantial evidence could lead to financial repercussions.
Allegations of EVM Discrepancies
The petition was brought forth by Priya Mishra and Vikas Bansal, represented by advocate Narendra Mishra. They argued that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had failed to ensure the integrity of the election process, specifically citing discrepancies in EVM battery levels. According to the petition, some EVMs were reportedly functioning at 99% battery capacity, while others operated at levels as low as 60-70%. This variation raised alarms about the reliability of the vote counting process.
Read Also: The Judicial Legacy of Justice Sanjeev Khanna|| Future CJ’s Key Judgments Explained
The petitioners highlighted concerns over the EVMs used on October 8, 2024, asserting that the battery discrepancies were found within the same polling station. They claimed that Indian National Congress candidates had raised these issues with the returning officers, but many concerns went unaddressed.
“In fact, in some cases, this discrepancy was discovered in EVMs used in the same polling station. Immediately upon discovery, the Indian National Congress candidates raised this issue before the concerned Returning Officers; however, in the majority of the places, there was no response received in this regard and included it under corrupt electoral practices,”
the petition stated.
Questioning the Integrity of Turnout Data
In their plea, the petitioners also pointed out irregularities in the published turnout percentages. The ECI released turnout figures of 61.19% and 65.65% on October 5, 2024, followed by an unexpected figure of 67.90% on October 7, 2024, which raised further suspicions. They claimed, “No clarification about 99 per cent to 70 per cent charged of EVM battery. These charged EVMs are suspected despite without support of any additional power/energy; any electronic device can be charged either without any source of additional energy is physically not possible.”
A Call for Accountability
The petitioners urged the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to conduct re-elections in the Haryana assembly, focusing on the twenty seats where EVM discrepancies were alleged. They also sought the publication of detailed turnout data and the storage protocols for EVMs, along with election certificates.
In light of their concerns, the petition emphasized the importance of maintaining a democratic process, insisting that any electoral irregularities must not compromise free and fair elections. “This Public Interest Litigation has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to ensure that the democratic process is not subverted by electoral irregularities and to ensure free and fair elections and the rule of law,” the petition noted.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s swift dismissal of the petition underscores its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. By rejecting claims deemed frivolous, the court reinforces the importance of solid evidence in legal proceedings concerning election results. As political parties and stakeholders continue to navigate the complexities of electoral processes in India, the court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the necessity for accountability and transparency in maintaining the sanctity of democracy.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES