This week, a Supreme Court bench refused to entertain a petition to revert to the ballot paper system of voting in Indian elections. Petitioner KA Paul claimed that leaders of high stature such as Chandrababu Naidu and YS Jagan Mohan Reddy had also complained of possible tampering with EVMs.
Responding to Paul’s claims, the bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale, pointed out a perceived inconsistency in the arguments of politicians. “When you win elections, there are no complaints about EVMs. But when you lose, suddenly there are allegations of tampering. How can we conduct our proceedings based on this?” the court remarked, emphasizing that the courtroom is not the appropriate venue for such disputes.
Paul also asked for a direction to the Election Commission to declare the candidates ineligible for at least five years if proved to be distributing bribes or inducement to voters before elections. The court replied with curiosity: “How do you come up with these interesting ideas?” remarking that he comes with quite interesting ideas, highlighting his notable background as president of an organization which has helped more than three lakh orphans and 40 lakh widows.
Advocating the use of paper ballots, Paul said, “EVMs are a threat to democracy.” He also mentioned that even influential figures like Elon Musk have raised an alarm over EVM tampering and that India should adopt practices from other countries like the United States.
The bench countered Paul’s argument and asked him why he did not want India to fall in line with international practice. In this regard, the Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar said recently, while announcing the dates of polls in Maharashtra and Jharkhand, that EVMs cannot be tampered with. He shared his confidence that these machines are safe and secure, adding that there needs not be any shifting of focus depending upon election results.
“Matlab kitni baar? Anyway,” said Kumar, apparently in response to unrelenting questions regarding the integrity of the EVM machines. He ended his speech by emphasizing that constant questioning of the process arises only when results are unfavorable.
