Their apprehension has got two valid reasons. The first is the consistent claim by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of winning more than 400 seats. The second, the refusal of the Supreme Court to direct the Election Commission to have ballot election, or to ensure that all the VVPAT slips are counted. The methodology of testing a single grain of rice while being cooked to ascertain if the dish is ready is not enough. The most important question that the people are raising is whether the procedure of holding elections through EVM is more sacrosanct than ensuring the fundamental right of a true and unadulterated mandate.

The Supreme Court is right in observing that in an electoral process, there has to be sanctity, and that nobody should have apprehension that something which is expected is not being done. But the fact is people are apprehensive. As Justice must not only be done, it must look that justice has been done. Similarly, since people nurse apprehension, it is the primary task of the judiciary, as the matter is before it, to ensure that the apprehension is removed from their mind forever.

Even the people at the ground level, living in the rural areas, look at the EVM with suspicion. The situation has been worsened by none else than Modi’s constant emphasis that he would win 400 seats. The dubious role of Election Commission is quite known to even a layman. How could the judges of the Supreme Court overlook the action of Modi who outright defied the suggestions of a Constitution bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud that Election Commissioners be appointed by the President of India on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, and leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party), and the Chief Justice of India. The bench said this practice will be enforced until a law in this regard is made by the Parliament.

Modi overruled Supreme Court and brought in his own men, exposing his ominous intentions. The Supreme Court, while hearing the EVM case, directed the Election Commission of India to provide a comprehensive account of the measures taken to ensure free and fair polls. People of the country can only expect that the EC abides by SC order. They have already been witness to the SBI reluctance to supply details of the Electorate Bond. If the apex court had not threatened to hold the bank of committing contempt, probably the SBI would not have relented.

It is really depressing that EC under Modi has never tried to take the people into confidence. A large number of complaints and petitions are pending with the EC about the malpractices and fraud committed during the 2019 Lok Sabha and 2020 and 2022 assembly elections for disposal. CEC Rajiv Kumar, a trusted lieutenant of Modi, is not at all concerned of these complaints. The Supreme Court holds: "This is an electoral process. There has to be sanctity. Let nobody have apprehension that something which is expected is not being done." In the past, people did not nurse any apprehension, but this time they are sceptical. It would be better if Rajiv Kumar comes out with the explanation as to why the people are apprehensive. Why Rajiv failed to inculcate a sense of democratic security and safety amongst the voters?

While hearing the case, the court dismissed the idea of a return to the ballot paper era. Justice Sanjiv Khanna said that they have not yet forgotten what used to happen when votes were cast through ballot papers. He said: “Fortunately, we are now in our sixties. We have seen what used to happen earlier. Have you forgotten that? If you have forgotten that, I am sorry, I have not forgotten.” Justice Khanna said this in court to Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appearing for petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, sought 100% verification of EVM votes with VVPAT slips. At present, only 5 EVMs are randomly verified against VVPAT slips per Assembly segment.

In this regard, it is worth recalling the incidents of booth capturing in Bengal. Otherwise too, Bengal has been the most electorally sensitive state in India. But a similarity between resorting to strong-arm tactics for booth capturing certainly cannot be compared with the operation of EVMs. Booths were captured for a particular candidate. But EVM is used to help a party on the whole. Through EVM, people apprehend that the entire electoral processes is trampled upon.

In this backdrop, the observation of Supreme Court ought to be pointed out. It had on July 23, 2021 said that any attempt of booth capturing and/or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands, because it ultimately affects the rule of law and democracy. The bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that “the freedom of voting is a part of the freedom of expression and secrecy of casting vote is necessary ...”

EVM is a machine and there is o guarantee that it would not be misused. Incidentally, on April 18 underscoring the importance of voter satisfaction and trust in the electoral system, the Supreme Court had told petitioners who sought its direction to go back to using ballot papers not to suspect the efficacy of EVM and appreciate if the EC does good work. Taking the cue from apex court’s observation that “voter satisfaction and trust are at the core of the electoral process”, it is worth asking what’s the harm in holding a demonstrably transparent election, and not just one that merely asks us to repose faith in the already compromised institutions. With a body already under public scanner for its role, the court has to have a relook.

There is no denying that everything must not be suspected. But Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. Caesar divorced Pompeia, saying that "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion". Caesar’s words implied that a famous or prominent figure in public service must even avoid attracting negative attention or scrutiny, let alone be proved guilty in court of law. Common people nurse their suspicion. They have the right. Obviously, the lawyer representing the people before the bench must apprise the court of the apprehensions of his client.

However, according to Justice Khanna, one should not suspect Election Commission’s functioning, even though manipulative intrigues of PM Modi that has brought it under the glare of public suspicion. If the CEC Rajiv Kumar had disposed of thousands of electoral complaints in a rational manner, his reputation would have stayed intact. Nobody would have used the phrase “Rajiv’s Election Commission”, which is circulating in the social and media sector.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said: “By these efforts the vote percentage gets affected. People may think that something is wrong. Democratic choice of voter is being made into a joke despite repeated rebukes to them (petitioners) by this court.” But the fact is otherwise. Petitions articulate voters’ valid concern and voice their apprehensions.

During the period when India was recognised as the most vibrant democracy and had earned enormous fame amongst the global fraternity under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, elections were held through paper ballots. If at all the EVM system had worked well, the issue of reverting to paper ballot would not have arisen. Electoral process in India is certainly a "humongous task", but mere procedural ‘efficiency’ should not be the reason for any political party to hijack the right to vote of the common people.

Advocate Nizam Pasha was correct in saying that voters should be allowed to take the VVPAT slip after casting their vote and deposit it in a ballot box. He was also correct in saying "Voter privacy cannot be used to defeat voter's rights." To assess the veracity of Election Commission’s claim of transparency and probity, the Supreme Court must have the charges of malfunctioning of EVM in Kerala during mock trial be investigated by an independent judicial authority. It would be a major step in restoring peoples’ trust in elections and electoral process.

Supreme Court is the most respected judicial institution. Obviously a lawyer arguing before it must not and cannot base his pleas simply on hearsay. A question that recurrently haunts is, why the people have lost trust in EVM? Who has been primarily responsible for creation of this situation? Starting in the late 1990s, they were introduced in Indian elections in a phased manner. But of late, it has come under peoples’ scanner. It is the prostrating of the EC before its political masters hat has been at the base of the present crisis. The way Rajiv Kumar has been functioning has further raised the level of distrust amongst the people in the neutrality of the Election Commission. Restoring the lost trust is vital to safeguard the sanctity of the “world’s largest carnival of democracy”. (IPA Service)