Supreme Court Dismisses Kamal Nath's Plea for 10% VVPAT Verification in Elections

The Supreme Court of India, in a crucial decision, dismissed a writ petition filed by Kamal Nath, the President of the Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee, seeking enhanced transparency in elections through 10% random verification of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) votes. The case also involved a demand for voter list transparency, including the publication of electoral rolls in text format. The Court found that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had already addressed these concerns in previous rulings and administrative guidelines.

Background of the Case

Kamal Nath filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 935 of 2018) requesting:

Mandatory verification of VVPAT slips in at least 10% of randomly selected polling stations per assembly constituency.
Publication of the voter list in text format to facilitate data verification by political parties.
Expedited resolution of complaints regarding voter list errors and prevention of voter deletions without intimation to political parties.
Fresh guidelines on VVPAT procedures, including storage, security, and recounting mechanisms.

The petition was filed in anticipation of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly Elections, raising concerns about discrepancies in the voter list and the effectiveness of the VVPAT system.

Key Issues Raised

Should VVPAT verification be extended to 10% of polling stations to ensure electoral transparency?
Was the Election Commission justified in providing voter lists in non-searchable PDF format instead of text format?
Did the Election Commission adequately address concerns regarding voter list discrepancies?
Should new guidelines be issued regarding VVPAT storage and security?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Kamal Nath)

The petitioner argued that a mere 1% VVPAT verification was insufficient to ensure electoral fairness.
He claimed that errors in voter lists had resulted in disenfranchisement and needed urgent correction.
He sought text-format voter lists, which would allow political parties to scrutinize voter rolls more efficiently.
The petitioner highlighted that duplicate and fake voter entries had been identified, necessitating enhanced scrutiny.

Arguments of the Respondent (Election Commission of India)

The ECI contended that the demand for 10% VVPAT verification was excessive and unnecessary.
It argued that the Supreme Court had already ruled on similar matters, affirming the existing VVPAT verification system.
The ECI stated that voter lists in text format could compromise voter privacy and facilitate data mining.
The Commission explained that regular voter list verification procedures were already in place to address concerns about duplicate and fake entries.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that the ECI had introduced VVPAT verification as a transparency measure but found no compelling reason to expand the process to 10% of polling stations. The Court relied on previous judgments that had settled similar matters, reaffirming that the existing verification process was adequate.

Regarding the voter list issue, the Court acknowledged that text-format lists could pose privacy risks and agreed with the ECI’s position that searchable text formats were not required by law.

The Court observed:

“The Election Commission has implemented extensive measures to ensure voter list accuracy and electoral transparency. The demand for additional VVPAT verification is not justified, given the existing safeguards.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The petition for 10% VVPAT verification was dismissed as unnecessary.
The demand for voter lists in text format was rejected to protect voter privacy.
The Court upheld the Election Commission’s existing mechanisms for voter list verification and transparency.

The judgment concluded:

“Repeated challenges to settled electoral procedures should be avoided unless substantial new evidence justifies reconsideration.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s stance on election integrity and procedural fairness:

VVPAT Verification Limits: The judgment confirms that existing VVPAT verification procedures are sufficient.
Voter List Privacy: The ruling supports the ECI’s decision to prevent voter profiling by restricting text-format lists.
Judicial Deference to Election Commission: The Court upheld the ECI’s discretion in managing electoral processes.

This decision strengthens the regulatory framework governing India’s electoral system, ensuring a balance between transparency and security.

Petitioner Name: Kamal Nath.
Respondent Name: Election Commission of India & Others.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 12-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kamal Nath vs Election Commission Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Election and Political Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category