VVPAT Row | "Nipping Attempts To Weaken Our Nation's Progress In The Bud": Justice Datta's Warning

Supreme Court judge Dipankar Datta Today (April 26th) said there seems to be a concerted effort to discredit, diminish and weaken India’s progress on every possible frontier and any such attempt has to be “nipped in the bud”, while rejecting pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

VVPAT Row | "Nipping Attempts to Weaken Our Nation's Progress in the Bud": Justice Datta's Warning

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta expressed concerns over what he perceives as deliberate efforts to undermine India’s progress across various fronts. He emphasized that such attempts must be decisively addressed and halted at the earliest opportunity.

Justice Datta, who was a member of the Supreme Court bench that dismissed petitions demanding comprehensive cross-verification of votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) against Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs), articulated his views in a separate opinion. He concurred with Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the head of the bench, but chose to write his thoughts independently regarding the issue of switching back to paper ballots.

In his judgment, Justice Datta remarked on the emerging trend of vested interests trying to discredit the nation’s achievements.

“It is of immediate relevance to note that in recent years, a trend has been fast developing of certain vested interest groups endeavouring to undermine the achievements and accomplishments of the nation, earned through the hard work and dedication of its sincere workforce,”

-he wrote.

He stressed-

“any concerted effort to discredit, diminish and weaken the progress of this great nation on every possible frontier must be nipped in the bud.”

Addressing the petitions filed by entities like the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, which advocated for a return to paper ballots, Justice Datta defended the current system. He criticized the motives behind these petitions, suggesting that they aim to cast doubt on the integrity of EVM voting, thereby disrupting the electoral process.

“I have no hesitation to accept the submission of senior counsel for the ECI that reverting to the ‘paper ballot system’ of the bygone era, as suggested, reveals the real intention of the petitioning association to discredit the system of voting through the EVMs,”

-he stated.

Furthermore, Justice Datta expressed skepticism about the petitioners’ motives, questioning their commitment to genuine electoral reform despite their history of contributions to the cause. He asserted the need for advancements in voting technology rather than a regression to outdated methods.

He emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in electoral matters, declaring that no entity, including the Election Commission of India, can operate beyond the reach of lawful scrutiny or possess unchecked authority over the electoral interests of individuals.

Justice Dipankar Datta underscored the critical importance of preserving the integrity of the electoral process in India, emphasizing that its security “has to be secured at any cost” and is unequivocally vital. He noted the enormity of conducting elections in India, describing it as a “humongous task” that presents unique challenges not encountered in other parts of the world.

Highlighting the scale of India’s electoral operations, Justice Datta pointed out that there are 97 crore (970 million) eligible voters for the 2024 general elections, constituting more than 10 percent of the global population. This immense demographic underscores the significance and complexity of the electoral process in India.

Justice Datta further reflected on the legislative framework underpinning India’s electoral system. He lauded-

“Representation of the People Act, 1951, is the most important enactment after the Constitution of India, and a crucial tool for upholding the democratic and republican ideals that form the core of the nation’s foundational promises.”

Addressing the challenges posed by such a vast electorate, Justice Datta remarked that the larger the electorate, the greater the challenges and responsibilities that fall on the Election Commission (EC). He stressed that the EC must navigate these challenges flawlessly, as there is absolutely no margin for error.

He also commented on the periodic challenges to the electoral processes that tend to surge as general elections approach. These challenges necessitate a robust and effective defense by the EC to prevent any adverse judicial rulings that could potentially damage the authority and reputation of the poll panel.

Justice Datta discussed the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in India, noting that while India is not the only country to utilize electronic voting, the Indian system includes specific checks and balances to ensure transparency and fairness. He addressed concerns raised by petitions regarding the potential for EVMs to be tampered with, stating that such issues are mitigated through the stringent measures in place.

The petitions that came before the apex court had also challenged a decision by the election authorities in 2017 to replace the transparent glass on Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines with an opaque one, which only allows voters to see the slip when a light is on for seven seconds. This change was part of the grievances brought before the court.

Justice Datta’s remarks were part of a broader discussion as India embarked on its seven-phase Lok Sabha polls, which began on April 19 and are set to conclude with the announcement of results on June 4. This electoral process underscores the ongoing commitment to maintaining and improving the robustness of India’s democratic procedures.

Justice Datta concluded by affirming the judiciary’s commitment to uphold the rule of law, ensuring that all actions related to governance remain accountable and transparent, particularly when valid concerns warrant judicial intervention.