Supreme Court denies Congress’s plea of cross verification of EVM votes with VVPAT paper trails

New Delhi: The Congress on Friday tried to secure a Supreme Court order, though without success, for count of 20% paper trail votes in Gujarat in the counting slated on Monday. The Apex Court Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra dismissed the plea to direct the Election Commission to count and verify at least 20% of the voter paper slips long with the EVM votes.

It said the court cannot interfere in the ongoing poll process since it cannot override the Election Commission’s discretion to conduct the polls. Following the court’s point blank refusal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is also a senior Congress MP, offered to scale down his demand to counting of 10% of the EVM paper trail.

He finally withdrew the petition after the court told him that a substantial petition for comprehensive electoral reforms can be piloted to cover recording of votes on the VVPAT machines attached to the EVMs but only after the Gujarat counting is over.  Gujarat Congress secretary Mohammed Arif Rajput had rushed to the Apex Court in an attempt to prevent Prime Minister Modi playing the “EVM (electronic voting machine) magic,” as in the past elections, to overturn the popular perception of the Congress ousting the BJP in power for the past 22 years.

The court asked Singhvi why the petition had been filed by a Gujarat Congress functionary in his personal capacity and why the party itself does not come out boldly to say so. Dismissing the exit polls, the Congress is expecting, on the basis of its internal assessment, to bag 95 to 105 seats in the 182-member Gujarat Assembly, but for its fears of the EVM manipulation.

“We shall insist on all future elections, including the Lok Sabha polls in 2019, to be held with the paper ballot, if we lose in Gujarat. And we may think of boycotting any further polls with the EVMs,” said Anand Sharma, deputy leader of Congress in the Rajya Sabha, who campaigned in Gujarat for many days.

Declining to entertain Singhvi’s pleas, the Bench, which also included Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, said, “We can’t substitute the decision of the Election Commission unless you demonstrate the EC’s decision is either arbitrary or not in accordance with law.”

Singhvi pleaded that even the Election Commission had apprehension about the EVM count and decided to count the paper trail of one booth in each of the 182 constituencies. The court shot back, asking him to explain and show any evidence for his apprehension and also demonstrate how the EC’s decision to count paper trial of EVMs in one booth per constituency was arbitrary, illegal or mala fide.