The Supreme Court on Friday chastised Jan Vikas Party of Madhya Pradesh for bringing the baseless accusation of EVM tampering to the court, saying the court is not a place where everybody walks in just to get “some publicity”. The court dismissed their petition against the use of EVM in elections, and imposed a cost of ₹50,000.
The two-judge bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka was hearing a petition filed by the Jan Vikas Party contesting the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s December decision dismissing their plea of raising the issue about ‘tampering’ of EVMs. Despite the Election Commission of India issuing many clarifications and several authorities affirming the integrity of EVMs, this is one of many tirades undertaken by opposition parties and their sympathisers every time exit polls indicate a BJP victory in any election.
In line with various other political opponents, the Jan Vikas Party also claimed that the electronic voting machines (EVMs) were “controlled” by some companies and not the Election Commission.
The Supreme Court, while rejecting the plea at a penalty of ₹50,000, stated that the Election Commission (EC) oversees the election process under The Representation of the People Act, 1951, and EVMs have been used in elections for many years.
“Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) process has been utilized in our country for decades now but periodically issues are sought to be raised. This is one such endeavour in the abstract. It appears that party which may not have got much recognition from the electorate now seeks recognition by filing petitions!” a bench of Justices S K Kaul and A S Oka said in its order.
“Do you know how many people vote in parliamentary elections in the entire country? It is a huge exercise,” the bench observed.
“We are of the view that such petitions must be deterred and thus dismiss this petition with costs of Rs 50,000 to be deposited with Supreme Court Group-C (Non-Clerical) Employees Welfare Association within a period of four weeks from today,” it said.
It court inquired if the petitioner wanted the court to supervise the exercise to see how the EVMs were used.
The counsel told the court that the petitioner desired certain checks and balances in this procedure. He stated that the petitioner wants Article 324 to be applied in its entirety and that everything should be handled by the EC rather than a private company. “They only want a free and fair election process,” the counsel said to which the court said, “It is not a place where everybody walks in just to get some publicity.”
