On 26th November, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by evangelist Dr K.A. Paul, where he had sought a return to ballot paper voting in India. He had also called for the disqualification of candidates found guilty of distributing money, liquor, and other inducements during election campaigns.
Supreme Court questions petitioner’s motives
While dismissing the plea, the apex court questioned the motives of the petitioner. Dr Paul, who appeared in person, had claimed that he had the support of 180 retired IAS/IPS officers and judges. He cited his humanitarian work during the argument, where he claimed to have “rescued” over three lakh orphans and 40 lakh widows. However, his plea to return to ballot paper voting met with scepticism from the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice P.B. Varale. Commenting on the plea, Justice Nath remarked, “You have filed PILs earlier. How do you get such brilliant ideas?”
Nath J: How do you get these brilliant ideas?
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 26, 2024
Paul: I am just coming from Los Angeles from a wonderful global peace summit. We have about retired IAS IPS and judges. They are supporting me.
Nath J: Why are you entering to this politics arena?
‘Ballot paper voting for democracy’
During the hearing, Dr Paul argued that physical ballot voting was essential to ensure democracy. He cited examples of voting in 180 countries and declared, “Every democracy in the world, if you see [has physical ballot paper]. Unless dictators, because they do not have elections.”
Paul: 18 political parties have supported this. ECI announced that they have seized around 9000 crores. 180 out of 197 countries are following physical ballot system. Why should we follow everybody? Let us be different
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 26, 2024
Nath J: Ok. Why you should follow other countries?
Paul: I…
Furthermore, he claimed that the electoral process in India is corrupt and necessitated this change. He asked, “Election Commission announced this year in June that they have seized nine thousand crore, more than one billion dollars, cash and gold. What is the consequence?” To this, Justice Nath refuted his claims, saying, “There is no corruption. Who says corruption?”
Dismissal with remarks on EVM tampering
Dr Paul claimed that EVMs are vulnerable to tampering. He cited social media posts from politicians like Chandrababu Naidu and Jaggan Mohan Reddy and claimed endorsements from figures like Elon Musk. He said, “Even during my global peace summit, Elon Musk had clearly stated that EVM technology can be tampered.” Though he claimed that Elon Musk attended his summit, Opindia found no such evidence. There were no videos or reports that suggest that Musk attended the “global peace summit” of Dr KA Paun in LA.
Petitioner: Even political leaders like Chandrababu Naidu and Mr Reddy have said that EVM can be tampered. Even during my global peace summit, @elonmusk had clearly stated that EVM technology can be tampered
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 26, 2024
While Dr K.A. Paul mentioned Musk, interestingly, the billionaire recently lauded India’s voting system while criticising California’s inability to finish the counting of votes even after over 25 days.
Justice Nath dismissed the allegations and stated, “What happens is, if you win the elections, EVMs are not tampered. When you lose elections, EVMs are tampered.” Before dismissing the petition, the bench remarked, “What happens is, if you win the elections, EVMs are not tampered. When you lose elections, EVMs are tampered. When Chandrababu Naidu lost, he said EVMs can be tampered. Now, this time, Jaggan Mohan Reddy lost, he said EVMs can be tampered.”
Nath J: When Chandrababu Naidu or Mr Reddy lost, they say that EVMs are tampered when they won, they don't say anything. How can we see this? We are dismissing this. This is not the place where you argue all of this.
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 26, 2024
PIL Dismissed
Justice Nath further remarked that political parties do not have objections to the voting system. He observed, “Political parties have no problem with this system. You have a problem.” The bench concluded that the current system does not warrant the changes suggested by the petitioner.
