The Supreme Court recently rejected a plea that sought re-elections in 20 assembly constituencies in Haryana, citing allegations of suspicious results and discrepancies in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, declined to entertain the petition.
The plea, filed by Priya Mishra and Vikas Bansal through advocate Narendra Mishra, raised concerns about the accuracy of the election results and the performance of EVMs during the counting process.
The petitioners alleged that some EVMs used in the Haryana Legislative Assembly elections had inconsistencies in their battery levels, with certain machines functioning at 99% battery capacity, while others operated below 80%. This, they claimed, indicated potential issues with the voting machines, which could have influenced the final results.
During the hearing, the court noted that the petition was frivolous, especially since it aimed to dismiss the government on the day of its oath-taking ceremony.
The bench warned the petitioners of potential costs being imposed for filing such a petition. The court ultimately decided not to entertain the writ petition, stating that it had no merit under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioners argued that the Election Commission of India (ECI) failed to address their concerns about the EVM discrepancies. They pointed out that the Indian National Congress had also raised complaints about the functioning of the machines, yet the majority of the concerns went unanswered by the Returning Officers. The petitioners claimed that these issues constituted corrupt electoral practices and urged the court to investigate the matter further.
One of the key arguments made by the petitioners was that EVMs, which had varying battery capacities during the counting process, could have been tampered with. They argued that some machines showed battery capacities of 99%, while others displayed much lower levels, raising suspicion about the machines' functioning during the crucial moments of the election results.
The petition also highlighted inconsistencies in the voter turnout percentages published by the ECI. The turnout data, according to the petitioners, showed unusual fluctuations between the evening of October 5, 2024, and October 7, 2024, just before the start of counting.
The petition sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to direct the ECI to conduct fresh elections in the 20 suspicious constituencies. The petitioners also requested that the ECI release all the data related to the voter turnout, including the forms required by election law, to ensure transparency in the election process.
The plea further emphasised that democratic processes must be upheld without the risk of being undermined by irregularities. The petitioners referred to constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 19, and 21, as well as sections of the People Representation Act and Conduct of Election Rules, to support their argument for free and fair elections. They urged the court to take steps to ensure that electoral discrepancies do not threaten the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.
Despite the claims made by the petitioners, the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the plea indicates that it found no substantial evidence to support the allegations of EVM malfunction or election result manipulation. The court's rejection of the petition underscores the importance of presenting credible proof when challenging electoral outcomes in such a significant manner.
Follow us
