Supreme Court dismisses plea alleging EVM irregularities, citing previous scrutiny

EVM Saga: Citing the court's extensive review of over 10 cases on the matter, Justice Khanna emphasised the need to refrain from entertaining assumptions and reiterated that every method, including EVMs, has its strengths and weaknesses.

Follow us:
Courtesy: Screengrab

EVM Saga: The Supreme Court recently declined to entertain a plea highlighting alleged irregularities in the functioning of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), emphasizing its prior examination of similar petitions. The decision, delivered by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Dutta, and Augustine George Masih, underscores the court's stance on addressing issues related to EVMs.

Court's Response to the Plea

In response to the plea presented by Nandini Sharma, the bench reiterated its previous scrutiny of petitions concerning EVM functioning. Citing the court's extensive review of over 10 cases on the matter, Justice Khanna emphasised the need to refrain from entertaining assumptions and reiterated that every method, including EVMs, has its strengths and weaknesses.

Petitioner's Claims

Sharma, the petitioner, named the Election Commission of India and six political parties as respondents in the plea, highlighting concerns over the integrity and reliability of EVMs. However, the court's decision to dismiss the plea under Article 32 reflects its commitment to judiciously addressing issues within its purview.

Previous Judicial Scrutiny

The bench's decision underscores the judiciary's proactive approach in addressing electoral concerns and ensuring the integrity of the democratic process. Previous cases related to EVMs and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) have received judicial attention, affirming the court's commitment to upholding electoral transparency and accountability.

As the Supreme Court reaffirms its stance on addressing electoral matters, the dismissal of the plea alleging EVM irregularities underscores the need for evidence-based scrutiny and judicial prudence. While concerns over electoral integrity persist, the court's decision reflects its adherence to legal principles and the preservation of democratic norms.