Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India

Breaking News

Back Next

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 384

SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA
Association for Democratic Reforms – Appellant
Versus
Election Commission of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv. Ms. Alice Raj, Adv. Mrs. Suroor Mandar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Asim Sarode, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Mr. Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. **Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanada Mishra, Adv. Mr. Navneet Dugar, AOR Mr. Prabu Ramasubramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Bharathi Mohan M, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar A., Adv. Mr. Santosh K., Adv. Mr. Shurutanjay Bharathwaj, Adv. Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, AOR Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv. Mr. Virendra Mohan, Adv. Mr. Varun K Chopra, Adv. Mr. Mehul Sharma, Adv. M/s. VKC Law Offices, AOR Petitioner-in-person, AOR Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, AOR Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. (N/P) Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Aakriti, Adv. Mr. Abhay Nair, Adv. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. (N/P) Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Kajal Giri, Adv. Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Ms. Aayushi Mishra, Adv.

Headnote: Read headnote

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. Delay in refiling is condoned.

2. At the outset, we take on record that the counsel for the petitioners, in unison, have stated that the petitioners do not attribute any motive or malice to the Election Commission of India¹ [For short ‘ECI’], or for that matter contend that the Electronic Voting Machines² [For short ‘EVMs’] have been tutored or configured to favour or disfavour a candidate or political party. However, due to possibility of manipulating the EVMs there is suspicion and, therefore, this Court should step in to instil confidence in the voters³ [‘Voters’ and ‘Electors’ is used interchangeably] and the people. Voters have the right to know that the franchise exercised by them has been correctly recorded and counted.

3. On a pointed question put by the Court, it was argued, without prejudice and in the alternative, on behalf of the petitioner - Association for Democratic Reforms, that the Court should direct:

(a) return to the paper ballot system.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document