Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Reintroduce Ballot Paper Voting

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a return to ballot paper voting in elections across the country. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale noted the recurring pattern of allegations related to electronic voting machines (EVMs).

 "When you win the election, EVMs are not tampered with. When you lose, EVMs are tampered with," 

the bench observed.

The plea, filed by petitioner-in-person K.A. Paul, sought multiple directions, including a mandate for the Election Commission to disqualify candidates for a minimum of five years if found guilty of distributing money, liquor, or other inducements to voters.

During the hearing, the bench engaged in a candid exchange with Paul, who described himself as the president of an organization that has rescued over three lakh orphans and 40 lakh widows. "Why are you getting into this political arena? Your area of work is very different," the bench remarked.

Paul argued that foreign countries predominantly use ballot paper voting, and India should follow suit. However, the bench questioned the rationale, asking, "Why don't you want to be different from the rest of the world?"

When Paul cited corruption and the Election Commission’s reported seizure of ₹9,000 crore in June 2024, the bench countered, "If you shift back to physical ballot, will there be no corruption?"

Paul further claimed that prominent figures, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, had raised concerns about the tampering of EVMs. He also mentioned statements by TDP chief N. Chandrababu Naidu and former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, alleging EVM vulnerabilities. The bench noted the political undertones of these claims, commenting, "When Chandrababu Naidu lost, he said EVMs can be tampered with. Now this time, Jagan Mohan Reddy lost, he said EVMs can be tampered with."

The plea also sought the formulation of a framework to combat the use of money and liquor during election campaigns and emphasized the need for extensive voter education campaigns to encourage informed decision-making. Paul highlighted that 32% of educated voters were abstaining from voting, calling it a "tragedy" for Indian democracy.

The bench dismissed the petition, concluding that the relief sought lacked substantial evidence to justify a shift back to ballot paper voting.