SC rejects plea for reverting to ballots, cites advantage of EVMs

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 26, 2024) indicated a level of hypocrisy attached to criticism about Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), saying “EVMs are tampered when you lose and fine if you win”.The oral remark was made by Justice Vikram Nath before dismissing a petition filed by evangelist K.A. Paul, who sought a judicial order to return to paper ballots.Justice Nath, during the hearing, asked Mr. Paul whether he wanted to turn the court into a political arena.Mr. Paul said he was not playing any politics in court. He said his visits abroad to various countries revealed that the paper ballot system was being followed in democracies across the world.

He drew attention to the fact that the court was hearing his petition on Constitution Day.

The evangelist, appearing in person, said the Election Commission of India must be directed to disqualify candidates found distributing largesse, money, liquor during elections for at least five years.

Mr. Paul said corruption amounted to violation of fundamental rights to equality, due process of law and free speech and expression.

In April 2024, the Supreme Court had, in a judgment, upheld the EVM system of polling while refusing to revive paper ballots.“The weakness of the ballot paper system is well known and documented. Keeping in view the vast size of the Indian electorate of nearly 97 crore, the number of candidates who contest the elections, the number of polling booths where voting is held, and the problems faced with ballot papers, we would be undoing the electoral reforms by directing reintroduction of the ballot papers. EVMs offer significant advantages,” the Supreme Court had reasoned in its verdict.The court had observed that “blind distrust” of an institution or a system bred unwarranted scepticism and impeded progress.

In September 2023, the Election Commission of India had assured the apex court EVMs could neither be hacked nor tampered. In a 450-page affidavit, the top poll body had stated that EVMs were “totally stand-alone machines having one-time programmable chips”.

The Bench dismissed Mr. Paul’s petition