Summary
The Court rejected demands to return to paper ballots, give voters physical VVPAT slips or count all VVPAT slips, finding no evidentiary basis to displace the safeguarded EVM system. It directed preservation of symbol-loading units and a candidate-triggered check of burnt memory in 5% of EVMs. The concurrence agreed and stressed evidence-based writ intervention and finality of earlier decisions. These are the directions and conclusions of the judgment dated 26 April 2024.
Issues
- Whether accurate-vote rights required universal VVPAT counting, physical slip access or paper ballots.
- Whether the VVPAT viewing window and complaint procedures warranted intervention.
- What additional preservation and post-result verification safeguards should apply.
- What evidentiary and finality considerations governed repeated writ challenges.
Provisions considered
- Articles 19(1)(a), 32 and 324, Constitution of IndiaThe right to accurate recording and counting did not entail the particular universal-counting or physical-access remedies demanded; the concurrence stressed substantiated threats rather than speculation. (¶¶ Khanna J. 67, Khanna J. 69, Khanna J. 75, Datta J. 6, Datta J. 14–18, Datta J. 21–28)
- Rules 49M(3), 49MA, 49S and 56D, Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961Viewing the printed slip satisfied the relevant rule; account-of-votes reconciliation and reasoned candidate-requested paper-trail scrutiny supplied safeguards. No opinion was expressed on IPC Section 177’s application. (¶¶ Khanna J. 45, Khanna J. 49, Khanna J. 50, Khanna J. 54, Khanna J. 55, Khanna J. 73, Khanna J. 74)
- Section 11, Explanation VI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The concurrence discussed res judicata in constitutional and public-interest writ proceedings, while recognising the qualified flexibility described for substantial new public-interest grounds. (¶ Datta J. 30–35)
Held
- On the technical safeguards, protocols and data before it, the Court rejected speculative tampering claims as a basis to replace EVM voting or require universal manual VVPAT counting. The voter’s right to accurate recording and counting is distinct from a right to any particular verification method, and physical access to slips raised misuse and practicality concerns. (¶¶ Khanna J. 42, Khanna J. 67–70, Khanna J. 72, Khanna J. 75)
- A marginally tinted window allowing the voter to view the slip did not violate Rule 49M(3); the rule did not require viewing its cutting or receiving it physically. Routine unrestricted verification demands under Rule 49MA were refused. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on application of IPC Section 177. (¶¶ Khanna J. 73, Khanna J. 74)
- For symbol-loading processes undertaken on or after 1 May 2024, symbol-loading units must be sealed in containers signed by candidates or representatives, retained in strong rooms with EVMs for at least 45 days after results, and thereafter handled for opening and examination as EVMs. (¶ Khanna J. 76(a))
- Upon written request within seven days of results by the second- or third-placed candidate, manufacturers’ engineers must check burnt memory/microcontrollers in 5% of the EVMs per assembly constituency or parliamentary assembly segment for tampering or modification. The requesting candidate identifies units by polling station or serial number; all candidates or representatives may attend. (¶ Khanna J. 76(b))
- The District Election Officer, consulting the engineers, must certify authenticity/intactness after verification. The requesting candidate pays the actual costs notified by the Election Commission, refundable if tampering is found. This engineer-led check is distinct from a direction to manually count 5% of VVPAT slips. (¶ Khanna J. 76(b))
- Machine counting and barcode suggestions were left for Election Commission technical examination, without a compulsory implementation direction. The petitions and all pending applications were disposed of with the two additional safeguards. (¶¶ Khanna J. 71, Khanna J. 76, Khanna J. 77)
- Datta J. concurred in the reasoning and directions. His separate opinion emphasised that a genuine, well-founded threat can support preventive writ relief, whereas conjecture alone cannot. It also discussed res judicata and the need for substantial new grounds when reopening previously settled public-interest challenges. (¶¶ Datta J. 1, Datta J. 2, Datta J. 21–28, Datta J. 30–35)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of; requested paper-ballot, physical-slip and universal-counting relief refused. Symbol-loading-unit preservation and specified candidate-triggered 5% burnt-memory verification directed.