Back
Pendency Of Cannot Justify Blanket EVM Retention:
The has held that the mere pendency of an does not warrant the of every EVM and VVPAT stored within a district. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay observed that preservation must be confined to specifically connected with the election or proceeding for which preservation is required.
A Delicate Balance: Administrative Needs vs. Judicial Preservation
The ruling came on an application filed by the , who sought leave to intervene in (EP) No. 4 of 2024—a challenge to the election from the 29-Arambagh (SC) Parliamentary Constituency filed by Arup Kanti Digar against Mitali Bag and others.
The DEO requested directions to release the VVPATs and defective EVMs, including pre-poll machines, for repair, reconditioning, and subsequent use in elections. Permission was also sought to segregate and shift the equipment between designated warehouses.
The Critical Distinction Between Constituencies
The court noted that another proceeding—EP No. 1 of 2019—concerns the 28-Hooghly Parliamentary Constituency, a distinct electoral division. While that case had also ordered preservation of , it could not, by its mere existence, require preservation of equipment belonging to a different constituency.
"The preservation direction in E.P. No. 1 of 2019 concerns
relating to 28-Hooghly Parliamentary Constituency. E.P. No. 4 of 2024 concerns 29-Arambagh (SC) Parliamentary Constituency. The first proceeding cannot, merely by its existence, require preservation of electoral equipment belonging to a different constituency,"
the court clarified.
However, since EP/4/2024 directly concerns the Arambagh election, machines used in that election may constitute evidence and must remain preserved.
Preservation Must Be Specific
The court underscored an important principle:
"An
brings the validity of an election before the Court. The
relating to the election under challenge may constitute evidence in the
. Its preservation consequently serves a
and cannot be displaced merely by a subsequent
for the use of the same equipment."
It further held that a
is not outside the scope of preservation.
"A defect in the machine may itself form part of the factual material relevant to an election dispute."
No Blanket Release, But Segregation Permitted
The court rejected the DEO's prayer for blanket release of all EVMs and VVPATs from the Arambagh constituency. However, it permitted the DEO to undertake a detailed identification and segregation exercise.
Machines forming part of the of the election under challenge in EP/4/2024 shall remain preserved and must not be opened, repaired, altered, substituted, dismantled, or deployed without further court order. Similarly, machines subject to orders in EP/1/2019 shall continue to be preserved.
A Practical Path Forward
The court directed the DEO to prepare a complete inventory recording the identification particulars of each machine, the constituency and polling station to which it relates, the election in which it was used, and its present place of storage.
A transfer between designated warehouses is permitted, provided the identification, seals, custody, and remain intact.
Upon completion of the exercise, machines found to have no connection with EP/4/2024, EP/1/2019, or any other proceeding requiring preservation may be dealt with by the election authorities in accordance with applicable instructions.
Key Observations
-
"An brings the validity of an election before the Court. The relating to the election under challenge may constitute evidence in the ."
-
"The description of an EVM as defective does not take it outside the scope of preservation. A defect in the machine may itself form part of the factual material relevant to an election dispute."
-
"Electoral equipment having no connection with the pending election proceedings cannot be retained indefinitely merely because it happens to be stored together with machines which require preservation."
The Order
Leave was granted to the DEO to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking and implementing directions concerning the EVMs and VVPATs. G.A. No. 2 of 2026 was disposed of with the directions outlined above. No order as to costs was made.
The court also fixed the next hearing of EP/4/2024 for .
This ruling provides a balanced approach, recognizing both the administrative needs of election authorities and the judicial requirement for in election disputes.
