An order for inspection or verification of electronic voting machines in an election petition cannot be granted based on mere allegations of irregularities; it requires the petitioner to establish a prima facie case with cogent evidence indicating specific material errors in the counting process.

Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

CAV ORDER

1. By way of this Order, I.A. No. 1/2024 is disposed off.

2. This Application has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an order permitting the District Election Officer (DEO) / Returning Officer (RO) to conduct the checking and verification (C&V) of the EVMs (Ballot Unit, Control Unit, VVPAT Unit) used in the election held for the Kanker Parliamentary Constituency on 26.04.2024, as per the guidelines and protocols stipulated by the Election Commission of India in accordance with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India {2025 (2) SCC 732}.

3. The petitioner in the instant Election petition alleges that the election process was conducted with malice by the returning officer and that various irregularities and malpractices have been adopted by the respondents which materially affected the outcome of the election. The petitioner in the petition has alleged certain discrepancies in the EVM Machine Numbers between the EVM Machine Number VVPAT Unit in the Second Randomization Report and Form 17C of poling stations of various Assembly Constituencies namely Gundardehi No. 61, Sihawa No. 56, Sanjaribalod No. 59, Dondi Lohara (ST) No. 60, and Keshkal No. 82. The petitioner has also annexed the details in tabular form of aggregate numbers of registered voters, votes cast and respective votes for Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC).

4. It has also been contended that the petitioner has already submitted several complaints due to the defects regarding irregularities have been lodged with the Election Commission but no action has been taken by them which amounts to failure on the part of the Election Commission to conduct election in a fair and impartial manner. It has also been contended that due to these discrepancies the election result of Kanker Parliamentary Constituency No. 11 deserves to be annulled and prayed for re-election at Gunderdehi, Keshkal, Sanjaari Balod, Sihawa and Dondilohara or alternatively at whole Kanker Parliamentary Constituency No.11.

5. During pendency of this petition the petitioner has filed this interim application on 02.09.2024 for obtaining Court Order to permit checking and verification of EVM post announcement of result as per 4(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the SOP dated 01.06.2024 which has been issued as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Association of Democratic Reforms vs. Election Commission of India (Supra).

6. Respondent No. 1 has filed reply to the said application contending that the application is misconceived and the petitioner has to deposit fee before the District Election Officer within 7 days from the date of declaration of result and in the prescribed format but in present application it has not been mentioned that they have submitted the application within the stipulated time period as per the SOP and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Association of Democratic Reforms vs. Election Commission of India (Supra). It has also been contended that the period of 7 days from the date of declaration of the result has been provided in the SOP. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to plead that within 7 days of the declaration of the result he has submitted the application and there is no power to this Court to extend the period of 7 days. He would further submit that as per the SoP the candidate can choose to request only 5% of the EVM to be re-checked whereas the petitioner has prayed for rechecking and verification of entire EVMs u