During the present elections, opposition parties have expressed concerns regarding Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the openness of the electoral process. However, the Supreme Court recently denied their allegations, rejecting two petitions submitted by the opposition and its ecosystem. The court ruled that the timing of these pleas, right before the sixth phase of voting, was inappropriate and questioned the motivations underlying them.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea:
The Supreme Court categorically rejected all of the petitioners’ arguments, including those of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and TMC leader Mahua Moitra. The court also denied the request to reveal seat-by-seat voter turnout data and Form 17C data to the public. The court acknowledged the Election Commission’s concerns concerning false suspicions voiced during the polls. The Supreme Court criticised the timing of the pleas and emphasised the importance of taking a hands-off attitude during the ongoing political process.
Opposition’s Response:
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the opposition continues to dispute the transparency of the democratic process. They claim that the Election Commission should understand the need of transparency and are surprised by the lack of transparency in disclosing seat-by-seat statistics. However, their statements are viewed with scepticism because they have failed to present tangible evidence to back up their charges.
Pattern of Pleas during Elections:
It is worth remembering that the opposition submitted similar pleas during the 2019 elections. The Supreme Court also rejected those petitions, questioning the timing and motivations underlying them. The opposition’s recurrent attempts to contest the voting process raise questions about their objectives, and whether they are merely attempting to discredit the results when they do not go their way.
Supreme Court’s observations:
The Supreme Court’s observations during the plea hearings were critical of the opposition’s actions. The court questioned why these objections were brought before the court during the polls rather than previously. It emphasised that a petition could not be based entirely on media reporting and Election Commission press releases. The court also stated that the timing of the pleas and the financial interests involved cast doubt on their reliability.
The Supreme Court’s denial of the opposition’s requests for EVMs and openness in the electoral process strikes a blow to the conspiracy theories being spread. The court’s findings on the timing and motivations for these pleas raise concerns about the opposition’s objectives. While the opposition continues to question the democratic process, the court’s decision strengthens trust in the Election Commission and the election system. As the elections advance, it is critical to trust the existing systems and await the results of the people on June 4th.