Introduction:
In Upendra Nath Dalai v. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India & Anr, the Delhi High Court once again reinforced its confidence in the electronic voting process by rejecting a review petition seeking to mandate general elections through ballot papers instead of electronic voting machines (EVMs). The division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the review petition filed by Upendra Nath Dalai, who appeared in person, reiterating that issues surrounding EVMs had already been conclusively examined by the Supreme Court and other constitutional courts of the country. The Court maintained that the functioning and integrity of EVMs had been upheld time and again, affirming that they are simple, secure, and transparent. The petition, initially dismissed on September 24, sought reconsideration, but the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review.
Arguments:
During the hearing, petitioner Upendra Nath Dalai, representing himself, passionately argued that EVMs undermine the democratic process and lack transparency compared to the traditional ballot paper system. He contended that the electronic voting process could be susceptible to manipulation and hacking, thereby compromising electoral integrity. Dalai argued that the people’s faith in elections could only be restored through physical ballot papers, which allow for verifiable manual counting and eliminate any doubts regarding technological interference. He emphasized that reverting to ballot papers would enhance voter confidence and transparency. Further, Dalai attempted to justify his review petition by stating that he wished to exhaust all judicial remedies, including moving to the Supreme Court if the review was dismissed. The petitioner insisted that the use of EVMs was unconstitutional as it allegedly hindered the free and fair nature of elections guaranteed under Article 324 of the Constitution. He also pointed to various news reports and public opinions that expressed concerns over the possibility of EVM tampering, claiming that democracy demanded visible and verifiable voting mechanisms.
In response, the division bench questioned the necessity of filing a review petition after the earlier dismissal of the PIL on identical grounds. The Court reminded Dalai that the Supreme Court had thoroughly addressed the issue in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India & Anr, wherein it upheld the credibility and robustness of the EVM system. The bench also referred to the apex court’s observations that EVMs are user-friendly, technologically secure, and designed to prevent malpractices associated with ballot papers such as booth capturing, invalid votes, and counting errors. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appointed by the Court to interact with the petitioner, later informed the bench that despite being explained the settled legal position, Dalai remained adamant about pursuing the review petition.
On behalf of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Union Government and the Commission argued that the plea was not maintainable since all concerns about EVM security had been repeatedly tested and validated by both the judiciary and expert committees. The respondents highlighted that EVMs undergo rigorous technical evaluation and have in-built security features that make tampering practically impossible. They cited the Supreme Court’s consistent position recognizing EVMs as a superior mechanism to ballot papers, ensuring both efficiency and transparency. It was further submitted that the introduction of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system allows voters to verify their choices, thereby eliminating doubts about the authenticity of the voting process. The ECI’s counsel stressed that returning to ballot papers would not only regress India’s electoral advancements but also reintroduce risks of fraud and human error that the EVM system had effectively eradicated. The Union’s representative underscored that administrative convenience, accuracy in vote counting, and reduction in invalid votes are key advantages that the EVM system provides, aligning with the constitutional goal of ensuring free and fair elections.
Court’s Judgment:
After hearing both sides, the bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the review petition, expressing strong disapproval of unnecessary litigation consuming judicial time. The Court observed that the review petition was devoid of merit and failed to point out any apparent error in the earlier judgment that warranted reconsideration. The bench reiterated that judicial review is not an avenue for rehearing or rearguing settled issues but is meant to correct manifest errors of law or fact, which were absent in this case. The Court further remarked that Dalai’s persistence in re-litigating an issue conclusively decided by the Supreme Court amounted to a futile exercise.
Referring to its earlier order dated September 24, the Court highlighted that the question of using EVMs or ballot papers had been extensively debated in constitutional courts. The bench underscored that the Supreme Court, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India & Anr (2023), had upheld the EVM-VVPAT system as reliable and transparent. The apex court had also emphasized that both voters and political stakeholders were well-acquainted with the functioning of EVMs, leaving no scope for ambiguity or distrust. In that judgment, the Supreme Court had rejected allegations of EVM malfunction or tampering, finding no substantive evidence to support such claims.
The Delhi High Court also noted that a coordinate bench, in a similar petition earlier that year, had dismissed an identical plea against the use of EVMs in general elections. Drawing from these precedents, the present bench reaffirmed that EVMs are not only secure and tamper-proof but also represent a significant technological leap towards ensuring smooth, swift, and error-free elections. The judges observed that the petitioner’s claims of manipulation were speculative, unsupported by credible evidence, and contrary to the findings of the Election Commission’s expert committees.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the review petition with the brief remark “Review dismissed,” signaling that the matter was conclusively settled and did not warrant judicial reconsideration. Before pronouncing the order, the bench had given an opportunity to Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao to counsel the petitioner on the futility of pursuing the case. However, after Dalai expressed his intention to have the matter dismissed so that he could approach the Supreme Court, the Court formally rejected the review.
In its earlier dismissal order, the Court had emphasized that democracy thrives on the electorate’s faith in the electoral machinery, and that faith must rest on facts, not unfounded skepticism. The bench reaffirmed that the judiciary, the Election Commission, and Parliament have repeatedly affirmed the integrity of EVMs. The Court reiterated that mere apprehension or conjecture cannot dislodge the technological foundation of India’s electoral system, especially when the Supreme Court itself has held EVMs to be “simple, secure, and user-friendly.” It also highlighted that reverting to ballot papers would reintroduce historical electoral malpractices such as booth capturing, counting discrepancies, and delays in declaring results, which the EVM system was designed to eliminate.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s decision serves as yet another judicial affirmation of India’s commitment to technology-driven elections. By dismissing the review petition, the Court reaffirmed its faith in the robustness and credibility of the EVM system while cautioning against judicial misuse through repetitive litigation. The ruling sends a clear message that constitutional courts will not entertain speculative challenges aimed at undermining the legitimacy of a well-tested electoral process. The Court thus reinforced that EVMs, complemented by the VVPAT mechanism, ensure transparency and trustworthiness in India’s democratic exercise, consistent with constitutional principles of free and fair elections under Article 324.