Gurugram: It’s back to ballot papers and ballot boxes in Punjab Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat polls on Tuesday, after the Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal to stall the polls over the Punjab Election Commission’s decision against using EVMs.
The CJI-led bench was hearing an appeal against the Punjab & Haryana High Court order that refused to halt the polls or replace ballot voting with EVMs, observing it cannot order a last-minute change to the electoral process.
The petitioners’ counsel flagged the spectre of booth capturing, a fear not entirely unfounded given Punjab’s electoral history.
“If that happens, then it’s a failure of law and order. That cannot happen,” Chief Justice Kant said, in a remark that was as much a statement of constitutional expectation as it was a rebuff.
The counsel, appearing before the CJI-headed bench, pressed further, asking the court to appoint a senior IPS officer as a poll observer, a request that did not find favour either.
The Supreme Court’s refusal came days after the Punjab and Haryana High Court had, on 22 May, similarly declined to direct the State Election Commission to abandon ballot papers and switch to EVMs.
What happened at the high court
Three petitions—two PILs filed by Ruchita Garg and Preet Kamal Uppal, and a writ petition by Deepak Verma—came before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry. The petitioners argued that the Punjab State Election Commission’s decision to conduct municipal polls through ballot papers rather than EVMs was illegal; a violation, they said, of the law as settled by the Supreme Court in the Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India case.
In the ADR judgment, the Supreme Court had used language that was unambiguous. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, one of the authors of that judgment, had written that reverting to ballot papers would be a “regressive” step, one that must be “eschewed” unless substantial evidence against EVMs is placed before the court.
Justice Dipankar Datta, in his concurring opinion in the same case, had observed that VVPAT tallying exercises had never produced a single mismatch, and that it would “defy the sense of logic and reason of a prudent man” to mandate 100 percent VVPAT verification on the basis of mere apprehension.
The petitioners leaned heavily on this. If the apex court has said ballot papers are regressive, how can a State Election Commission unilaterally revert to them, they asked.
The High Court, however, looked at the matter differently.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, writing the judgment pronounced on 22 May, noted that the Punjab Municipal Election Rules 1994 do not, in fact, make EVMs the exclusive mode of voting. Section 48-A, introduced in 2006, defines the design of electronic voting machines. But the court pointed out that while introducing this provision, the rule-making authority had deliberately retained the provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes.
“The reason for retention of the provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes is quite obvious,” the Chief Justice wrote. “In our society, where illiteracy, poverty and ignorance continue to plague a large section of society, the rule-making authority intentionally retained the provision of ballot papers and ballot boxes and did not omit the same, while introducing the concept of EVMs in municipal elections. There may be occasions where the Election Commission of India or the State Election Commission may have to revert back to the traditional mode of ballot papers and ballot boxes.”
In other words, the court held that the legal framework itself anticipates scenarios where EVMs may not be available or practical, and the law provides for that contingency. The State Election Commission’s decision was, therefore, not without legal basis.
But the court also noted that there was a blame game going on between the two respondents. The State Election Commission (Respondent No. 2) had, according to its own counsel, sought EVMs of the M2 model, while the Election Commission of India (Respondent No. 3) was offering M3A model machines.
“This court would not like to be a party to such blame game,” Chief Justice Nagu wrote curtly, and proceeded to decide on merits.
The court then came to the timing. The election notification had been issued on 13 May. The petitions were filed on 18 and 19 May—five to six days later. Arguments were heard and concluded on 21 May. Polling was two days away.
“It is now too late in the day for us to pass any order or issue any writ,” the court held. The election process had advanced to a stage where judicial intervention would cause more disruption than the problem it sought to solve.
The petitioners were told they were free to challenge the election result through an election petition, if so advised.
“We may be persuaded by the decision of the apex court that going back to the orthodox method of ballot papers and ballot boxes may not be appropriate,” Chief Justice Nagu wrote, but immediately followed it with the finding that since the petitioners came too late, interference was not possible.
For More News Updates Follow Us On www.tconews.in
