The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to the justify use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) under Section 61A of Representation of People Act, 1951 [Ramesh Chander vs Election Commission Of India]. .A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Justice Tushar Rao Gedela and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the petition was "luxury litigation" intended to take election process back to the stone age."According to you, we should go to Stone Age. This is a luxury litigation," Justice Gedela remarked. “The challenge to use of EVM has been rejected by ECI. I find no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed,” the Court ordered. .Earlier, a single-judge had rejected the petition on the ground that the issue had been decided previously.The petitioners sough directions to ECI to comply with Section 61A of Representation of People Act before holding any elections through EVMs. Section 61A states, "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, the giving and recording of votes by voting machines in such manner as may be prescribed, may be adopted in such constituency or constituencies as the Election Commission may, having regard to the circumstances of each case, specify."The petitioner prayed that the ECI should examine each constituency and conclude whether EVMs can be used and should demonstrate and explain the circumstances warranting the use of EVMs in each such constituency. .The Court stated that a plain reading of Section 61A of the Representation of People Act opens with a non-obstante clause that empowers the ECI to adopt the recording of votes by voting machines. The Court noted that ECI in 2019 had already specified the constituencies where EVMs are required to be adopted..The Court further stated that Section 61A does not support appellant’s interpretation that ECI should specify each constituency separately and also specify the special circumstances that would warrant EVMs. The Court noted that the same issue was decided by Delhi High Court in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India Further, the Supreme Court had also decided the issue in, Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India. The Supreme Court had stated that unless a substantive evidence is produced against EVMs, the current process would continue.In view of the above, the Court dismissed the appeal.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to the justify use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) under Section 61A of Representation of People Act, 1951 [Ramesh Chander vs Election Commission Of India]. .A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Justice Tushar Rao Gedela and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the petition was "luxury litigation" intended to take election process back to the stone age."According to you, we should go to Stone Age. This is a luxury litigation," Justice Gedela remarked. “The challenge to use of EVM has been rejected by ECI. I find no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed,” the Court ordered. .Earlier, a single-judge had rejected the petition on the ground that the issue had been decided previously.The petitioners sough directions to ECI to comply with Section 61A of Representation of People Act before holding any elections through EVMs. Section 61A states, "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, the giving and recording of votes by voting machines in such manner as may be prescribed, may be adopted in such constituency or constituencies as the Election Commission may, having regard to the circumstances of each case, specify."The petitioner prayed that the ECI should examine each constituency and conclude whether EVMs can be used and should demonstrate and explain the circumstances warranting the use of EVMs in each such constituency. .The Court stated that a plain reading of Section 61A of the Representation of People Act opens with a non-obstante clause that empowers the ECI to adopt the recording of votes by voting machines. The Court noted that ECI in 2019 had already specified the constituencies where EVMs are required to be adopted..The Court further stated that Section 61A does not support appellant’s interpretation that ECI should specify each constituency separately and also specify the special circumstances that would warrant EVMs. The Court noted that the same issue was decided by Delhi High Court in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India Further, the Supreme Court had also decided the issue in, Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India. The Supreme Court had stated that unless a substantive evidence is produced against EVMs, the current process would continue.In view of the above, the Court dismissed the appeal.
