Lok Sabha elections 2024 are in the last leg with results coming out on 4th June. EVM has been widely used in this election. However now and again there is a protest from the opposition party on its usage. Do you know, the Supreme Court struck down the first election conducted using EVMs?
In 1982, the first election was held using electronic voting machines in the Kerala assembly constituency of Paravur by the Election Commission. However, there was turmoil around it and the Supreme Court disapproved of it.
What was the disagreement?
Half of the eighty-four polling stations in the Paravur assembly seat in Kerala had these machines. This election featured six contestants and A.C. Jose of Congress.
At 50 out of 84 polling stations in Kerala’s Paravur assembly constituency, machines were used. This election had 6 contestants, most of whom were AC Jose from Congress and N Sivan Pillai from the Communist Party of India. On 20 May 1982, it was announced that Pillai had received 30,450 votes most of which were cast manually or through a machine at a ratio of 11,268:19,182 while Jose’s votes totaled 30,327. The victory’s margin was just 123 seats, hence AC Jose went to court to contest election results.
Why the Supreme Court rejected EVM result
AC Jose had previously petitioned the Kerala High Court on the outcome of the election. Nonetheless, the Kerala High Court upheld the decision by ECI to use EVMs and did not interfere with the results. On the contrary, a three-judge bench of judges Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, A Varadarajan as well as Ranganath Mishra declared that EVMs were illegal with the Supreme Court taking over the case afterwards though at a later date. The court in its wisdom declared that there would be re-polling at fifty places even including centers where the election had been conducted in accordance with the law.
What were the reasons for the Supreme Court to cancel the election?
The Electoral Commission cannot be the third house
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the Independent Election Commission is different from the parliament because law-making belongs only to the latter body. The Court held that it is by operating under a constitution that the EC would not form the third chamber of the legislature. The Court importantly observed that the Electoral Commission cannot assume that it is all-powerful in making laws.
Supreme Court – Article 324 cannot be read broadly
The lawyer Ram Jethmalani has some arguments in the court and said that Article 324 of the Constitution bestows full authority on the Election Commission in relation to conducting elections to the Parliament and state assemblies on behalf of the winning candidate Mr. Pillai. The powers conferred by the Constitution upon ECI shall supersede any Act of Parliament or any statutory rules made thereunder. However, the Supreme Court has observed that to read Article 324 in that expansive and innovatory sense is not possible.
Election commissioner can bring political havoc with Power
The Supreme Court bench said that endorsing the argument made by the respondent would make the Election Commission an autocratic body with regard to elections. The guidelines with respect to the procedure and approach to elections would fall by the wayside. Additionally, the Supreme Court cautioned that in case the given additional powers are vested in the commission and there is someone with a particular ideology who can create havoc.
Conclusion
Supreme Court refrained from making any comment on the advantages or disadvantages of EVMs and left the legal approval of the machines for voting to the assemblies. According to this decision, the government amended the 1951 Act and allowed the use of EVMs.
