Plea To Verify EVMs Used In Haryana Polls : Supreme Court Bench Places Matter Before CJI To Decide Appropriate Bench

Hearing the plea filed by Karan Singh Dalal (former Haryana Cabinet Minister and 5-time MLA) and Lakhan Kumar Singla (a candidate in the recent Haryana Assembly elections) seeking verification and checking of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the elections, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be placed before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for listing before appropriate bench.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale passed the order and refused to consider the prayer for interim relief (including retention of storage units, etc.). The order was dictated thus:

"To our understanding, the relief claimed by means of this petition would require interpretation/modification/implementation of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 26 April 2024 passed in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India. As such, Registry may place the papers before Hon'ble CJI for passing appropriate orders as to whether this petition be listed before the same Bench or before another appropriate Bench".

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan appeared for the petitioners and argued that in terms of the EVM-VVPAT judgement (Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India), the petitioners, who obtained second highest votes in their constituencies, were only required to make a complaint for checking and verification of the machines. He urged that the idea of the judgment was that the EVM memory recording votes be looked at, yet the memory of the 4 units of EVMs (Control Unit, Ballot Unit, VVPAT and Symbol Loading Unit) is erased and then a mock poll is conducted to check if a machine is working properly.

"That is not at all what your Lordships directed. We just seek implementation of the two directions issued in the judgment...the judgment said Election Commission should lay down a policy, they have laid down two memorandums...one is administrative and one is technical...the technical one only says do (a) not...", said the senior counsel.

Hearing him, Justice Nath observed that essentially, the petitioners are not satisfied with the policy laid down by ECI pursuant to the EVM-VVPAT judgment and are seeking interpretation/modification of the judgment. As such, the bench that passed the judgment may be in a better position to consider the issues. Accordingly, the order was passed.

After the order was dictated, Sankaranarayan submitted that the petitioners were seeking interim relief to the effect that the ECI may retain storage units, etc. and prayed that the matter be listed next week. Remarking that issuance of any direction in that regard would be "unfair", Justice Nath said, "Registry will place it immediately, you can persuade the Registry".

Briefly put, the petition sought directions to the ECI to lay down a policy/memorandum for the checking and verification of the original burnt memory/microcontroller of the four components of the EVM (Control Unit, Ballot Unit, VVPAT and Symbol Loading Unit) in terms of the judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms.

The excerpt from the Association for Democratic Reforms judgment, relevant to the petitioners' case, reads thus:

“The burnt memory/microcontroller in 5% of the EVMs, that is, the control unit, ballot unit and the VVPAT, per assembly constituency/assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency shall be checked and verified by the team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVMs, post the announcement of the results, for any tampering or modification, on a written request made by candidates who are at SI.No.2 or Sl.No.3, behind the highest polled candidate. Such candidates or their representatives shall identify the EVMs by the polling station or serial number. All the candidates and their representatives shall have an option to remain present at the time of verification…”

It was their case that the ECI had not issued any policy/guideline/procedure for checking and verification of the original burnt memory/microcontroller of the four components of the EVM in terms of the judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms.

The petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record Neha Rathi.

Case Title: KARAN SINGH DALAL & ANR. VERSUS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 822/2024