The petitioner in the EVM case, the non-profit Association for Democratic Reforms or ADR, got a stern warning today from the Supreme Court, which said “blindly doubting a system can breed scepticism”. Justice Dipankar Datta, who was part of the two-judge bench said, ”I have serious doubt as regards the bona fides of the petitioning association when it seeks a reversion to the old order”.
“Irrespective of the fact that in the past efforts of the petitioning association in bringing about electoral reforms have borne fruit, the suggestion put forth appeared inexplicable,’ the judge said.
The court also said there has been a rise of “certain vested interest groups” that try to undermine the achievements and accomplishments of the nation.
“There seems to be a concerted effort to discredit, diminish, and weaken the progress of this great nation on every possible frontier. Any such effort, or rather attempt, has to be nipped in the bud,” Justice Datta said.
The court had rejected the petitioner’s demand that all votes cast on Electronic Voting Machines be verified through paper slips generated by the VVPAT (Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail) machine.
“While balanced perspective is important, blindly doubting a system can breed scepticism and thus, meaningful criticism is needed,” Justice Datta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna had said while delivering the order.
The ADR petition was one of several that sought cross-verification of votes, citing discrepancy with data uploaded on the site of the Election Commission and pointing out that the machines leave room for manipulation.
The petition had also sought a return to ballot papers, citing the example of several other nations, including the US, Germany and the Netherlands, where the use of EVMs is banned.
The court, however, said in a vast and populous country like India, EVMs streamline the voting process and reduces the chances of rigging and mis-count of votes that are high in a ballot-paper election.
“Let’s not draw analogies and comparisons from Germany and other countries. My home state West Bengal has more population than what Mr Bhushan (Prashant Bhushan who was representing the ADR) said about Germany’s population. It’s a very small state,” Justice Datta had said.
The court pointed out the lack of data in the ADR petition, saying, “While rational scepticism of the status quo is desirable in a healthy democracy, this Court cannot allow the entire process of the underway General Elections to be called into question and upended on mere apprehension and speculation of the petitioners”.
