The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday directed State Election Commission to place on record the correspondence relied upon to justify the decision to conduct elections to Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats through ballot paper instead of EVMs, and placed the matter on the urgent list for hearing on Wednesday.
The direction assumes significance as State Election Commission had claimed before the bench that letters were written to the Election Commission (EC), seeking EVMs, which were not being made available.
The issue arose in a PIL filed by Ruchita Garg against the state of Punjab and other respondents, challenging the shift from EVMs to ballot paper in civic body elections.
The matter was heard by a division bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocates Chetan Mittal and Amit Jhanji, assisted by Mayank Aggarwal and Avichal Sharma, assailed the decision as a return “to bygone era”.
It was argued that EVM-based elections in the state were introduced through provisions similar to those under the Representation of the People Act and that both sets of provisions were pari materia. It was further submitted that the validity of EVM-based voting has been consistently upheld by constitutional courts.
Heavy reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India and others, before contending that any attempt to discredit the EVM system undermines democratic processes and “must be nipped in the bud”.
The petitioner also submitted that the Supreme Court had repeatedly highlighted the vulnerabilities of the ballot paper system, including booth capturing, bogus voting, invalid votes and election disputes, whereas EVMs minimise such issues, reduce paper usage and expedite counting.
It was further argued that Section 64 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, read with the relevant rules, indicated that wherever “ballot paper” is mentioned—except in postal ballot cases — it must be read as voting machine (EVM), leaving no discretion with the state to revert to the old system contrary to settled law.
During proceedings, the bench queried the State Election Commission on the rationale for shifting to ballot paper. The commission’s counsel submitted that communications had been sent to EC for procurement of EVMs but the machines were not being made available.
This stand was seriously disputed by counsel for EC, advocate Prateek Gupta, who relied on a circular stating that States are required to arrange EVMs from designated sources specified by EC for state elections and that separate EVM sets are earmarked for such purposes.
In view of the claims, the high court directed State Election Commission to produce the correspondence relied upon to justify the switch, and also sought instructions from EC regarding the status and availability of EVMs. The matter has been listed for urgent hearing on Wednesday.
