Supreme Court refuses to allow 100 percent manual counting
The apex court made it clear that the issue of seeking 100 percent manual counting of VVPAT slips cannot be agitated again and again.
New Delhi:
The matter was heard by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and comprising justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan. The bench was hearing a plea filed by one Hans Raj Jain against the August 12, 2024 judgment of the Delhi high court on the issue.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to examine a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India for a 100 per cent manual counting of voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) slips in addition to electronic counting by the control unit.
The CJI said that earlier a bench led by him had passed a judgment raising similar issues. The bench made it clear that the issue cannot be agitated again and again.
The bench said it is not keen to interfere with the judgment of the high court on the issue. The CJI, refusing to entertain the plea, said, âWe do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgement (of the Delhi high court). The special leave petition is dismissedâ.
The poll panel had informed the high court that the issue was fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India.
Jain sought directions to the election commission to use appropriate prototype of VVPAT system in future, in which the printer is kept open and the printed ballot, which gets cut and falls out of the printer, is subject to verification by the voter, before providing the same to a presiding officer before leaving the polling station.
The apex court, rejecting the pleas seeking 100 per cent cross-verification of electronic voting machines (EVMs) data with VVPAT records, then held EVMs were safe, simple, secure, and user-friendly.
In August last year, the Delhi High Court had referred to apex court judgments and dismissed Jain's plea. It subsequently rejected a plea seeking the review of its verdict.
Â
Read More :Â
Â