Random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs: SC rejects review plea of 21 opposition leaders

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : May 07 2019 | 4:45 PM IST

The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to modify its April 8 order which directed the Election Commission to increase random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs to five polling booths per assembly segment in the Lok Sabha elections, and dismissed the review plea of 21 opposition leaders seeking that it be raised to 50 per cent.

"We are not inclined to modify our order," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi told senior advocates A M Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, who were appearing for the petitioners led by Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu.

The apex court on April 8 had directed the poll panel to increase random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs from one to five polling booths per assembly segment in the Lok Sabha polls, saying it would provide greater satisfaction not just to political parties but the entire electorate.

On Tuesday, Singhvi told the bench, which also comprised Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, that random matching of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) should be increased to at least 25 per cent as against the present 2 per cent.

"The Supreme Court had increased it from one to five (polling booths per assembly segment). We have asked for 50 per cent but we will be happy with 33 or even 25 per cent. We want at least 25 per cent. It is for increasing satisfaction and confidence building measure," he told the bench.

He said that the number of random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs should be "viable" and the order for increasing it to five polling booths per assembly segment would amount to only 2 per cent.

When the apex court said it would not modify the April 8 order, Singhvi said, "Suppose they (EC) find any fault in five, then? There is no guidelines for this".

Sibal also joined the arguments and said the poll panel had earlier "misled the court" on this aspect.

To this, the CJI said, "This is a review petition. We are not obliged to hear you in an open court."

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: May 07 2019 | 4:45 PM IST

Next Story