The court emphasized the importance of following established legal provisions and previous court decisions in electoral matters, and highlighted the limitations imposed by the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. The petitioner who is a practicing lawyer, has filed the present petition, pro bono public seeking a direction to the respondents to count all VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) slips along with the counting of votes through EVMs (Electronic Voting Machine) in the ongoing State Assembly elections.

2. The petitioner has stated that the respondent No.1, Election Commission of India has conducted polling in the State Assembly Election 2018 by use of EVMs fitted with a VVPAT which is an independent system attached with EVMs that allows the voters to verify that their votes are cast as intended. Though the petitioner has highlighted certain incidents viz. failure of CCTV camera and delay in discharge of VVPATs and lack of sufficient security in respect of polled/unused EVMs and VVPATs, but he confined his prayer in the present writ petition for direction to the respondents to count all votes polled in the State Assembly Election 2018 with the VVPATs through EVMs, because the issue regarding alleged tempering of EVMs and VVPATs and lack of sufficient security to the aforesaid machines, has already been considered by this Court in the case of Naresh Saraf vs. Election Commission of India and others [W.P. No.28106.2018] on 6-12-2018.

3. It is strenuously urged that paper trail should also be counted along with the EVM counting, in order to ensure complete transparency and restore confidence of the voters in the electoral process.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue relating to counts of votes with VVPATs slips through EVMs has already been declined by various High Courts and the Supreme Court. He referred the orders passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Nath vs. Election Commission of India and others [Writ Petition (Civil) No.935 of 2018] passed on 12-10-2018; Prakash Joshi vs. Election Commission of India [W.P.(C) No.983 of 2017, dated 30-10-2017]; and Manubhai Chavada vs. Election Commission of India & others [Writ Petition (Civil) No.1012 of 2017]. He also placed reliance on the order passed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Nagjibhai Pansuriya vs. Election Commission of India and others [Special Civil Application No.22074 of 2017, dated 12-12-2017].

5. In addition to above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the instant writ petition cannot be entertained, in view of the constitutional bar engrafted under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, as the election process has already commenced.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition for issuing directions to the respondents to count VVPATs slips along with counting of votes through EVMs in the ongoing State Assembly elections.

7. In the case of Kamal Nath (supra) a prayer was also made for issuance of directions to the respondents for conducting VVPAT verification at least 10% randomly selected polling stations in each assembly constituency/assembly segment to ensure free and fair elections. In the said case the main prayer was sought to provide to the petitioner soft copies of the draft electoral rolls published on July 31, 2018 in the text format. However, while declining the said prayer, the Apex Court also examined other relief of the petitioner for conducting VVPAT verification. In para 26 of the judgment, the Apex Court has referred the order passed in Prakash Joshi (supra) and did not entertain the said relief. Paras 26 to 28 of the judgment being relevant are extracted hereunder:

"26. Other relief which is claimed by the petitioner is to seek directions for conducting VVPAT verification at least 10% randomly selected polling stations in each assembly constituency/assembly segment to ensure free and fair elections. In this behalf, our attention was drawn by the respondents to Rule 56(d). It was also submitted by the respondents that this issue cannot be raised by the petitioner havin