Introduction
The Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of petitions regarding the verification of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) data with Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), expressed concerns about the adequacy of existing penal provisions to address manipulations in the electoral process. The Court emphasized the need for stricter penalties for official misconduct during elections.
Background
The petitioners had sought 100% verification of EVM data with VVPAT to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. During the proceedings, the Court raised questions about the calibration of VVPATs, candidate involvement in the process, and measures to prevent tampering.
Key Points
- Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta highlighted the seriousness of electoral misconduct and the need for stringent penalties.
- They noted that existing penal provisions, such as Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), only entail a maximum of 2 years of imprisonment, which they considered insufficient.
- Section 134 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), which deals with breaches of official duty in connection with elections, was also found to have limited penalties, such as a fine of Rs. 500.
- The Court referred to Section 136(2) of the RPA, which provides for imprisonment of up to 2 years for electoral offences, including tampering with ballot papers.
Impact
The Court’s observations suggest a recognition of the need for stronger legal deterrents against electoral malpractices and misconduct. Stricter punishments could serve as a deterrent and enhance the credibility of the electoral process.
Relevant Legal Provisions
- Section 177 IPC: Furnishing false information
- Section 182 IPC: False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person
- Section 131 RPA: Penalty for disorderly conduct in or near polling stations
- Section 136(2) RPA: Punishment for other electoral offences
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court’s remarks indicate a gap in the current legal framework regarding penalties for electoral offences. While the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue, it emphasized that legislative action was necessary to address these lacunae.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stance underscores the importance of ensuring the integrity of the electoral process through effective legal measures. The need for stricter penalties for election manipulations and misconduct reflects a commitment to uphold the democratic principles of free and fair elections.
