The Supreme Court on Monday, 25 May declined to entertain a petition challenging Punjab and Haryana High Court's refusal to direct the Punjab State Election Commission to use Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for upcoming local body polls in the state, legal news agency Bar and Bench reported.
The elections for the local bodies in Punjab are scheduled to be held on 26 May with the counting of votes scheduled to take place on 29 May.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi said that an "unwise choice" will not make the Court halt an election.
"If State Election Commission did not have power to switch to ballot papers then we would have intervened," Justice Bagchi remarked.
The Court added that since the rules allow it, ballot papers can be used for the polls.
"Yes ADR judgment used the word that ballot paper is a regressive step. So to change this mode when elections underway should not happen and we can make some observation for future elections," it added.
When the petitioner's counsel submitted that there could be booth capturing during the polls, CJI Kant said, "If that happens then it's a failure of law and order. That cannot happen."
On a request to appoint a senior IPS officer as a poll observer, Justice Bagchi said, "Are we going to presume unfairness in an election. Appointment of an observer is a very serious interdiction and we will not do it."
HC declines to interfere
The High Court had on 22 May declined to interfere with the decision of State Election Commission to use ballot papers for the polls.
The High Court had said despite the introduction of EVMs, Punjab Municipal Election Rules have retained the provisions relating to ballot papers and ballot boxes. It said that the reason for it was quite obvious.
If State Election Commission did not have power to switch to ballot papers then we would have intervened.
This led to the appeal before the apex court which came to be dismissed today.
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi represented the petitioner before Supreme Court.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
