On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition that sought the use of ballot papers instead of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for conducting elections in the country. The petition was reviewed by a bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale, who rejected the plea, asserting that claims of EVM tampering often arise selectively — only when candidates or parties lose elections. Justice Nath remarked, "When you win the election, EVMs are not tampered. When you lose the election, EVMs are tampered with," highlighting what he considered a pattern of convenient allegations. The bench's decision emphasizes the judiciary's position on maintaining EVMs as the preferred method for voting, despite the recurring controversies surrounding them.
The petitioner cited prominent political figures, such as Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu and former Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy, who have previously voiced concerns about EVMs' susceptibility to tampering. Additionally, references were made to claims by influential figures like Elon Musk, who has spoken about the possibility of EVM hacking. However, the court remained unconvinced, pointing out that these allegations only tend to surface when the complainants face electoral defeat. Justice Nath questioned the sincerity of such concerns, stating, "When Chandrababu Naidu or Mr. Reddy lost, they say that EVMs are tampered with. When they win, they don't say anything. How can we see this? We are dismissing this."
Beyond the EVM issue, the petitioner, Paul, also appealed for stricter regulations against electoral malpractice, suggesting that candidates proven to engage in voter bribery — through cash, liquor, or other means — should face disqualification for a minimum of five years. The court, however, seemed skeptical of Paul’s motivations and his qualifications to delve into the political arena, especially given his background. In a light exchange, the judges asked, "You have interesting PILs. How do you get these brilliant ideas?" Paul responded by highlighting his role as the president of an organization dedicated to aiding orphans and widows, prompting the bench to question why he was venturing into electoral issues. The judges suggested that his social work and political pursuits were disparate domains.
Paul also shared that he had traveled extensively, visiting over 150 countries, many of which utilize ballot paper voting. The judges countered by suggesting that India should not feel compelled to follow global trends, questioning, "Why you don't want to be different from the rest of the world?" This underscores a broader point — India's democratic process, particularly its use of EVMs, has been a subject of both admiration and scrutiny, making the debate over voting methods a deeply complex issue that balances tradition with technological advancement.
In the meantime, political discourse surrounding EVMs and ballot papers continues to be a point of contention. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge added to the debate by voicing his doubts about EVMs' reliability. On the same day as the court's decision, Kharge reiterated the Congress party’s call for a return to ballot paper voting. He proposed launching a mass movement akin to the Bharat Jodo Yatra to advocate for the reinstatement of ballot papers, signaling that this issue could remain a significant political talking point in the lead-up to future elections.
The court’s dismissal of the petition reflects a broader endorsement of EVMs, which have been used in Indian elections for decades and are seen by many as a more efficient and modern voting mechanism. Despite persistent criticisms, EVMs have been credited with reducing electoral fraud, streamlining vote counting, and enhancing the overall efficiency of the electoral process. The Election Commission of India has also repeatedly vouched for their reliability, citing multiple security features, tamper-proof designs, and layers of verification. However, skeptics continue to argue for greater transparency and assurances regarding their security.
Kharge's call for a ballot paper comeback also taps into a nostalgic sentiment for the pre-digital era of voting, reflecting concerns that some segments of the population have about the perceived opacity of digital systems. His proposal for a large-scale campaign indicates that, for a portion of the Indian electorate, the debate over EVMs versus ballot papers is not just about technology — it’s about trust, credibility, and the integrity of the democratic process.
The Supreme Court's stance on this matter underscores the judiciary’s belief in the continued use of EVMs, despite criticisms. By rejecting the petition, the court has signaled its support for maintaining a technologically advanced and modern voting system in India. This decision could have significant implications for future electoral processes, as the country navigates the balance between technological innovation and ensuring voter confidence in the democratic system. The dismissal is a clear indication that, at least for now, the legal system supports the status quo, viewing EVMs as a secure and reliable means of voting in one of the world's largest democracies. However, the political debates are likely to continue, as different stakeholders vie to shape the future of how Indians cast their votes in the years to come.
