ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Case Analysis

ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

November 24, 2024

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This landmark judgment examines critical issues concerning the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) mechanism in elections. The Supreme Court rejected the petitions for reverting to a paper ballot system or implementing 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counts. The Court upheld the robustness of EVMs and the existing safeguards in place to ensure the accuracy of electoral outcomes. It ruled that speculation or apprehension of manipulation lacks sufficient basis to interfere with established electoral procedures. The judgment reiterated the Court’s earlier position supporting the efficacy and transparency of the EVM-VVPAT system while emphasizing that free and fair elections are a cornerstone of democracy.

Keywords: Elections, EVMs, VVPAT, Electoral Process, Ballot System

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Another

ii) Case Number
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2023

iii) Judgment Date
26 April 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta

vi) Author
Justice Sanjiv Khanna

vii) Citation
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 415 : 2024 INSC 341

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(a), 32, and 226
Representation of the People Act, 1951
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, especially rr. 49L, 49M, 49S, and 56D
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 177

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
No prior judgments were explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Election Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose amidst concerns regarding the credibility of electronic voting systems in India. The petitioners sought directives to either reintroduce the paper ballot system or implement a more stringent verification process by counting 100% of the VVPAT slips. The petitions invoked the fundamental rights to free and fair elections and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Court addressed the long-standing debates over the reliability of EVMs and upheld the current practices of the Election Commission of India (ECI) based on extensive technical safeguards and historical precedents.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

EVMs have replaced paper ballots as a secure, transparent voting mechanism since 1982.
Petitioners argued that EVMs are prone to tampering and sought full VVPAT verification for election transparency.
They claimed modifications in the VVPAT mechanism (e.g., tinted windows) violated Rule 49M of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
The ECI maintained that no evidence of manipulation or errors in EVMs has been detected in millions of cases of use since their introduction.
A discrepancy was noted in one case during the 2019 elections due to human error, not technical failure.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether the current EVM and VVPAT systems violate the principles of free and fair elections.
Whether the VVPAT slips should be handed to voters or subjected to 100% manual counting.
Whether Rule 49MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 imposes arbitrary constraints on voters.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

EVM Vulnerabilities: Petitioners contended that EVMs are susceptible to tampering, despite ECI safeguards.
VVPAT Access: The printed VVPAT slip should be physically provided to the voter or placed in a separate ballot box for counting.
Transparency and Accountability: 100% manual counting of VVPAT slips is essential to instill voter confidence.
Violation of Rule 49M: Modifications such as tinted glass in the VVPAT mechanism hinder transparency.
Unfair Penal Provisions: Rule 49MA imposes undue burden on voters who lodge complaints regarding mismatched votes.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

EVM Reliability: ECI cited multiple tests and expert reviews confirming the integrity of EVMs.
Existing Safeguards: Measures such as mock polls, randomization, and partial VVPAT slip verification ensure accuracy.
Rule 49MA: The provision balances the need for addressing genuine complaints while preventing unnecessary disruptions.
Operational Challenges: Full VVPAT slip verification is logistically impractical and could delay results significantly.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the constitutionality of the EVM-VVPAT system and ruled that apprehensions about its manipulation were unsubstantiated. It found that the existing measures, including the counting of five VVPAT slips per constituency, adequately safeguard election integrity.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that allegations of electoral fraud must be substantiated with credible evidence. Speculative claims undermine the credibility of democratic institutions without contributing to constructive reform.

c. Guidelines Issued

Symbol loading units in VVPATs must be sealed securely after completion.
Post-election verification of 5% of EVMs’ microcontrollers for tampering may be allowed upon request by candidates.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces trust in the electoral process while balancing innovation and transparency. The decision underscores that free and fair elections do not necessitate a return to outdated methodologies. Instead, continuous improvement of technology and processes remains the key to preserving democratic integrity.

Case Analysis