The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections.
The petitioner had argued that the Election Commission of India (ECI) must provide specific justifications for using EVMs in each constituency, as outlined under Section 61-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The case was heard by a Division Bench led by Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, alongside Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. After reviewing the matter, the bench declared, “We find no merit in the present appeal, and the same is dismissed.”
The petitioner, Ramesh Chander, sought directions for the ECI to comply with Section 61-A of the Act before proceeding with any elections involving EVMs.
He argued that the ECI must assess the circumstances of each constituency individually and specify reasons for choosing EVMs over traditional ballot methods. Furthermore, he called for transparency in the preparation of electoral rolls and the justification for EVM usage.
The court, however, disagreed with this interpretation of the law. The bench clarified that Section 61-A provides the ECI with discretionary powers to decide on the use of EVMs, as long as it follows the prescribed manner.
The ECI had already placed on record its directions and a list of constituencies where EVMs were to be used, fulfilling its obligations under the law.
The bench noted that the petitioner’s demand for a constituency-wise explanation was not supported by the language of Section 61-A.
It further stated that the provision allows the ECI to adopt EVMs broadly, without needing to provide separate justifications for each constituency. Based on these findings, the court rejected the petitioner’s appeal.
This dismissal is not the first judicial ruling on the matter. In July 2024, another bench led by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav had similarly rejected a plea challenging EVM usage.
The court had observed that the issue had already been addressed in prior judgments and that the petitioner had failed to present any new or substantial grounds to justify further intervention.
The petitioner expressed concerns about the fairness and transparency of elections conducted with EVMs. He argued that the ECI’s lack of constituency-specific justifications could lead to mistrust in the electoral process.
However, the court reiterated that the ECI’s approach was consistent with the legal framework and dismissed the claims as lacking merit.