A writ petition ought not to be entertained if the plea is based on the mere suspicion that a right could be infringed, Supreme Court judge Justice Dipankar Datta said Yesterday (April 26th). He was part of the apex court bench which rejected pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with a VVPAT.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta Yesterday (April 26th) articulated the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained based merely on suspicions of potential rights infringements. This declaration came as the apex court bench, of which Justice Datta was a member, dismissed pleas that sought extensive cross-verification of votes recorded by electronic voting machines (EVMs) against Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPAT).
Justice Datta, concurring with Justice Sanjiv Khanna who presided over the bench, emphasized that mere suspicions of discrepancies in EVM votes do not suffice as grounds for the admissibility of writ petitions. He detailed his views in a separate opinion, underscoring the necessity for a demonstrable and tangible threat of rights infringement to maintain such petitions. Despite the lack of evidence of malice, arbitrariness, legal breaches, or genuine threats to rights, the pleas were considered not maintainable.
“The mere suspicion that there may be a mismatch in votes cast through EVMs, thereby giving rise to a demand for a 100 per cent VVPAT slips verification, is not a sufficient ground for the present set of writ petitions to be considered maintainable,”
–he said.
However, Justice Datta noted that the court, motivated by significant public concerns and official responses from the Election Commission of India (ECI), felt compelled to issue certain directions in the public interest and for justice.
“But, considering the seriousness of the concerns that the court suo motu had expressed to which responses were received from the official of the ECI (Election Commission of India) as well as its senior counsel, the necessity was felt to issue the twin directions in the greater public interest and to sub-serve the demands of justice,”
–Justice Datta said.
He further distinguished between mere suspicion and real threats to rights, arguing that the former does not warrant invoking the court’s writ jurisdiction. For a successful claim under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, he explained, there must be evidence of mala fide actions, arbitrariness, or a breach of law in the state action being challenged.
“Should mere suspicion of infringement of a right be considered adequate ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction? In my opinion, the answer should be ‘no’,”
-he said.
Justice Datta stressed that the writ jurisdiction, being extraordinary, requires substantial and credible material suggesting an imminent adverse action or a serious threat to the rule of law, beyond mere litigant suspicions.
“A writ petition ought not to be entertained if the plea is based on the mere suspicion that a right could be infringed,”
-Justice Datta said
The Supreme Court’s decision was part of its judgment on several petitions, including one from the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, which had also advocated for a return to paper ballots in elections.
Final Directions by Apex Court
- SC directs EC to seal symbol loading units for 45 days after symbols loaded to EVMs.
- SC allows verification of microcontroller of EVMs by manufacturer after poll results on request of candidates who stand second, third.
- SC says request for verification of microcontroller of EVMs can be made within 7 days of declaration of poll results upon payment of fees.
- If EVM is found tampered during verification, fee paid by candidates will be refunded: SC.
READ/DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT-
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on VVPAT
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
