Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"56(D)(2) On such application being made, the returning officer shall, subject to such general or special guidelines, as may be issued by the Election Commission, decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject in whole, if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable."

2.4 In the petition, reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India reported in (2013) 10 SCC C/WPPIL/36/2019 CAV ORDER

500. According to the petitioner, while holding that the VVPAT system was an indispensable requirement to conduct free and fair elections, the Apex Court while disposing of the petition and directing phase-wise manner of introduction of VVPAT system recognized that the VVPAT system was an indispensable requirement for free and fair elections. According to the petitioner, it was relevant to reproduce paragraph no. 29 of the judgement in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy which the petitioner has thought it fit to reproduce in the petition which we also reproduce hereunder:

3.3 Mr. Koshti further submitted that the very vesting of the discretion under Rule 56(D) with the Returning Officer enabling him to reject an application on the alleged ground that 'it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable' is a complete affront to the rule of law, tainted with the vice of arbitrariness under Article 14 and effaces the very purpose for which the paper trail was introduced.

3.4 Mr. Koshti therefore relying extensively on the decision in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra), submitted that since the Apex Court has held that the paper trail was an C/WPPIL/36/2019 CAV ORDER indispensable requirement for the conduct of free and fair elections, it was mandatory that the counting of VVPAT votes ought to be carried out in every election where the VVPAT is used and the discretion vested in the Returning Officer to reject such applications was unconstitutional and contrary to the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra).

6. At the outset, let us appreciate the issue that was raised before the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra). In the said case, the appeal was directed against a judgement and order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition disallowing the prayer of the appellant, for issuing a writ of mandamus to the Election Commission of India to incorporate the system of paper trails in the EVMs. After the contentions which were raised by the C/WPPIL/36/2019 CAV ORDER learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner therein, the Apex Court, after charting out the course of history that had gone into the introduction of the VVPATs and the EVMs held as under: