Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and others seeking various directions regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) in elections. The petitioners argued that despite no allegation of actual manipulation, there is a possibility of tampering with EVMs, which creates suspicion among voters. They sought either a return to the paper ballot system, or that VVPAT slips be given to voters to put in a ballot box for counting, or that 100% of VVPAT slips be counted instead of the current practice of verifying only five EVMs per assembly constituency. The Court noted that the petitioners did not attribute any motive or malice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and did not contend that EVMs have been configured to favour any candidate. The Court reviewed the history of EVMs, which were first used in 1982 and have been used in all general elections since 2004 after legislative approval. The Court referred to several earlier judgments, including Subramanian Swamy v. ECI (2013) which mandated VVPAT, and N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India (2019) which increased VVPAT verification from one to five EVMs per constituency. The Court also noted that earlier petitions seeking a return to paper ballots or 100% VVPAT counting had been dismissed. The Court held that the current system of EVMs with VVPAT is robust and ensures transparency, and that the ECI has taken adequate steps to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. The Court rejected the challenge to Rule 49MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which requires a voter to make a written declaration before casting a test vote, stating that the rule is not draconian or arbitrary. The Court also rejected the argument that the change from transparent to translucent glass window on VVPAT machines in 2017 deprived voters of knowing whether their vote was correctly recorded, holding that the VVPAT slip is still visible to the voter. The Court dismissed all the petitions, upholding the existing system of EVMs with VVPAT verification.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Vote - Free and Fair Elections - The right to vote is a constitutional right but not a fundamental right; however, free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court held that the existing system of EVMs with VVPAT is sufficient to ensure transparency and voter confidence, and no direction for return to paper ballots or 100% VVPAT counting is warranted (Paras 2-4, 15-20). B) Election Law - Electronic Voting Machines - Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail - Sections 61A, 61B Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The Court examined the history and reliability of EVMs and VVPATs, noting that they have been used successfully in multiple elections and have been upheld in earlier judgments. The Court held that the current system of verification of VVPAT slips for five EVMs per assembly constituency is adequate and does not require expansion to 100% (Paras 5-14, 21-25). C) Election Law - Rule 49MA Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Voter Declaration - The Court upheld the validity of Rule 49MA, which requires a voter to make a written declaration before casting a test vote, rejecting the argument that it is draconian or arbitrary. The reference to Section 177 IPC in the declaration is not misconceived (Paras 4, 26-28). D) Election Law - VVPAT Glass Window - Transparency - The Court rejected the contention that the change from transparent to translucent/tinted glass window on VVPAT machines in 2017 deprived voters of knowing whether their vote was correctly recorded. The Court held that the VVPAT slip is visible to the voter through the window, and the change does not affect the integrity of the voting process (Paras 4, 29-31).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) ensures free and fair elections, and whether the Court should direct a return to paper ballots, 100% counting of VVPAT slips, or other modifications to the voting system.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the existing system of EVMs with VVPAT verification. The Court rejected the prayer for return to paper ballots, 100% VVPAT counting, and other modifications. The Court held that the current system is robust and ensures transparency, and that the ECI has taken adequate steps to maintain the integrity of the electoral process. The challenge to Rule 49MA and the VVPAT glass window modification was also rejected.
Law Points
- Right to vote is a constitutional right but not a fundamental right
- VVPAT provides paper trail for verification
- EVMs are reliable and have been upheld in multiple judgments
- Rule 49MA of Conduct of Election Rules is valid
- Voter confidence is important but must be balanced with administrative feasibility
