Supreme Court Judgement on EVMs

On April 26, 2024, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a verdict in the case Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2024), rejecting a plea for 100% verification of votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). A review petition challenging this decision was subsequently filed on May 10, 2024.

A Brief History of EVMs in India

EVMs were introduced in India during the early 1980s and were fully implemented in the 2004 General Election across all 543 parliamentary constituencies. This marked the end of paper ballots and manual vote counting, streamlining the election process. However, concerns over transparency and potential tampering have persisted.

The Supreme Court first addressed these issues in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013). The Court underscored the importance of vote verification in maintaining the integrity of elections. It recommended integrating EVMs with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) to enhance transparency and instill voter confidence. Following this, the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, were amended, and VVPATs were officially notified on August 14, 2013. By the 2019 General Election, VVPATs were paired with all EVMs for the first time.

Since Subramanian Swamy, several petitions have sought increased transparency in the voting process, with some advocating a return to paper ballots. Below are key cases and their outcomes:

Key Supreme Court Cases on EVMs and VVPATs

The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in addressing these issues, balancing the need for modernisation with electoral integrity. Here is an overview of key cases:

Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013)

This landmark case arose from a civil appeal against a Delhi High Court decision. The petitioner, Subramanian Swamy, a former Law Minister, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to implement a “paper trail/paper receipt” system in EVMs. Swamy argued that a verifiable paper trail was essential to ensure transparency and build voter confidence in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court upheld this argument, declaring the paper trail an “indispensable” aspect of free and fair elections. While acknowledging the practical challenges faced by the ECI in implementing the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system, the Court emphasised its importance for maintaining electoral integrity. 

It recommended a phased implementation, beginning with the 2014 General Election, and directed the Government of India to provide financial assistance to procure VVPAT units. This judegment marked a turning point in India’s electoral reforms, laying the foundation for enhanced transparency.

Kamal Nath v. Election Commission of India (2018)

In 2018, former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath and others filed a plea seeking random VVPAT verification for 10% of votes in the Madhya Pradesh assembly elections. They argued that increasing VVPAT verification would instill greater confidence in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea, expressing its trust in the ECI’s impartiality and established reputation as a constitutional authority. The Court highlighted that the ECI had consistently demonstrated its integrity over decades and reiterated that baseless doubts about its processes were unwarranted. The dismissal reinforced the judiciary’s reliance on the ECI’s expertise and credibility.

Nyaya Bhoomi and Another v. Election Commission of India (2018)

In this case, petitioners sought a return to the paper ballot system, citing concerns over the reliability of EVMs. They argued that paper ballots would ensure greater transparency and public trust in elections.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the plea in November 2018. The Court reiterated that EVMs had been in use for decades and that the system was well-tested and trusted. It rejected the argument that paper ballots would offer a superior alternative, emphasising the efficiency and reliability of the EVM system.

N. Chandrababu Naidu and Others v. Union of India (2019)

Weeks before the 2019 General Election, then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, along with other political leaders, filed a petition seeking increased VVPAT verification. At the time, the ECI mandated VVPAT verification in just one polling station per constituency. The petitioners requested that this number be increased to 50% of EVMs in each constituency, arguing that broader verification would enhance trust in the electoral process.

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the ECI’s integrity and reaffirmed its trust in the institution’s impartiality. However, the Court recognised the potential benefits of increasing VVPAT verification to address public and political concerns. Consequently, it ordered the mandatory verification of VVPAT slips to be increased from one polling station to five randomly selected stations in each assembly constituency. This balanced approach ensured greater transparency without imposing excessive logistical burdens on the ECI.

Tech for All v. Election Commission of India (2019)

The petitioners in this case demanded 100% VVPAT verification for all votes cast in the 2019 General Election. They argued that complete verification was necessary to ensure absolute transparency and eliminate any doubts about the electoral process.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea, noting that it had already addressed a similar issue in the N. Chandrababu Naidu case. The Court emphasised that the existing system of verifying five randomly selected polling stations per constituency was sufficient to maintain trust in the electoral process.

C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Election Commission of India (2021)

This writ petition, first filed in the Delhi High Court, called for a complete return to the paper ballot system. The petitioners claimed that EVMs were susceptible to tampering and lacked the transparency offered by traditional paper ballots.

The Supreme Court rejected the plea, citing the petitioners’ inability to provide concrete evidence of shortcomings in EVMs. The Court reaffirmed its position that EVMs, combined with the VVPAT system, were reliable and that periodic doubts raised against the technology were largely speculative. This judegment reinforced the judiciary’s stance that electoral reforms must be evidence-based and not driven by unfounded apprehensions.

Madhya Pradesh Jan Vikas Party v. Election Commission of India (2022)

In 2022, the Madhya Pradesh Jan Vikas Party filed a petition seeking greater transparency in the EVM system. The petitioners requested a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose technical details about EVM hardware and configuration. They also demanded that the ECI strictly adhere to Rule 49E(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. This rule mandates that the Presiding Officer at every polling station must empty the EVM storage and demonstrate to polling agents that no votes are pre-recorded before voting begins.

Additionally, the petition sought the disclosure of EVM software to rule out the possibility of manipulation in favor of particular candidates. The petitioners argued that these measures were necessary to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea, citing the long-standing use of EVMs in Indian elections. The Court observed that such petitions are often “abstract” attempts to question the electoral system without substantial evidence. It also held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce statutory obligations. The judegment reinforced the Court’s trust in the ECI and its established procedures.

Sunil Ahya v. Election Commission of India (2023)

In 2023, petitioner Sunil Ahya filed a writ seeking an independent audit of EVM source codes. He argued that auditing the source code was critical to ensuring the machines’ transparency and security. The plea highlighted concerns that unverified programming could compromise the integrity of elections.

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasising that the ECI’s autonomy and credibility should be respected. The Court acknowledged that issues related to source code audits and their methodologies involve sensitive considerations tied to election security. It deemed this a policy matter that fell exclusively within the ECI’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had provided no evidence to demonstrate any failure by the ECI in fulfilling its duties. This decision reaffirmed the judiciary’s trust in the ECI’s ability to safeguard elections.

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2024)

Petitioners argued that verifying VVPATs in only five polling stations per constituency was inadequate and sought 100% verification or a return to paper ballots. They also suggested allowing voters to place VVPAT slips in sealed boxes themselves.

The Supreme Court, in its April 26, 2024 judegment, rejected the plea. The Court highlighted the extensive safeguards employed by the Election Commission to ensure free and fair elections and dismissed unfounded apprehensions. The judegment also noted that paper ballots were not a superior alternative for enhancing transparency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s consistent rulings have reinforced the credibility of EVMs and the Election Commission, emphasising technological safeguards and the practicality of VVPATs. While concerns about transparency persist, the Court has repeatedly placed trust in the Election Commission’s integrity, discouraging any unwarranted apprehensions about the voting system.