Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Judgment Dismissing Plea Seeking 100 Percent Counting Of VVPAT Slips

A Bench of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “Mr Jain, we have already examined these issues and we will not be examining the same issues over and over again.”

Jain appeared in person and submitted, “I kept my proposal before the Election Commission, however, they have not responded. Thereafter, I filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court for directions …Directing respondent for allowing a proposal transparency in the election process…”

CJI Khanna repeated, “Mr Jain, it does not happen like this…these issues cannot be re-agitated before us...”

Jain, making submissions in Hindi before the Court, stated that this was on the issue of counting.

The Supreme Court had earlier rejected similar pleas seeking 100% cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) data with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) records, observing that EVMs are simple, secure, and user-friendly.

Background

Jain had filed a PIL before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the ECI, to use an appropriate prototype of the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail ("VVPAT") system in the future, in which the printer is kept open and the printed ballot, which gets cut and falls out of the printer, is subject to verification by the voter, before providing the same to a presiding officer before leaving the polling station. He had also sought directions to the ECI to allow a representation, submitted by him on April 15, 2024.

He appeared in person and stated that there should be 100% counting of the VVPAT slips in addition to electronic counting by the control unit. He further stated that he was capable of counting all the VVPAT slips within eighteen hours.

The ECI submitted that the matter in issue was covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms vs.Election Commission of India & Anr. (2024), accordingly, instead of one EVM per assembly constituency or assembly segment in a parliamentary constituency, as stipulated under the erstwhile Guideline 16.6 of the Manual on EVM and VVPAT, it was held that five EVMs per assembly constituency or assembly segment in a parliamentary constituency would be subject to VVPAT verification.

The High Court referred to its decision in Kamal Nath v. Election Commission of India and Ors. (2019) observed that it was without doubt that over the last several decades ECI had built the reputation of an impartial body and a constitutional authority that strived to hold fair election in which the people of this country participated with great trust and faith.

The High Court observed, “We could have dismissed the present writ petitions by merely relying upon the past precedents and decisions of this Court which, in our opinion, are clear and lucid, and as repeated challenges based on suspicion and doubt, without any cogent material and data, are execrable and undesirable. However, we would like to put on record the procedure and safeguards adopted by the ECI to ensure free and fair elections and the integrity of the electoral process. For this purpose, we shall refer to and take on record the features of EVMs. (In view of the issue raised, we are not dealing with the post-counting handling of EVMs). Lastly, we would give two directions, and take on record suggestion(s) for consideration of the ECI."

The High Court noted that in view of the Supreme Court, the issue raised in the writ petition was no longer res integra, and dismissed the writ petition.

Consequently, the Bench dismissed the writ petition stating, “We do not find a good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment…petition is dismissed.”

Cause Title: Hans Raj Jain v. Election Commission of India (Diary No. 1865-2025)