SC rejects plea filed by 21 Opposition leaders seeking random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs during polls

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a review petition filed by 21 Opposition parties seeking review of its order on random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs in the ongoing general elections.

VVPAT

New Delhi: In a major jolt to the opposition amid the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a review petition filed by 21 Opposition parties seeking review of its order on random matching of VVPAT slips with EVMs in the ongoing general elections. The apex court rejected the review plea filed by twenty-one Opposition parties seeking a direction to increase VVPAT verification from five to at least 50% of EVMs during counting of votes in the general elections 2019. Opposition leaders like Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, CPI(M)’s T K Rangarajan and Nilotpal Basu and CPI’s D Raja among others were present when the review petition was heard. The petition had been signed by at least 21 Opposition parties’ leaders which includes Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Sharad Pawar, K C Venugopal, Derek O’Brien, Sharad Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, Satish Chandra Mishra, M K Stalin, T K Rangarajan, Manoj K Jha, Farooq Abdullah, S S Reddy, Danish Ali, Ajit Singh, Mohd Badruddin Ajmal and Jitin Ram Majhi. The leaders of the Opposition are likely to meet to take stock of the situation after the apex court’s proceedings. The Supreme Court on May 3 had agreed to consider the plea while the Election Commission (EC) had opposed the plea, saying it would take nearly six days to complete the counting of votes. Opposition leaders had said in their review petition, “Till now, the credibility of EVMs was not the main issue. However, due to subsequent developments, it has been seriously called into question. The number of EVMs to be randomly checked against VVPAT deserved to be increased.” Reportedly, the petitioners had claimed that 2% increase brought in by the court was not sufficient and would not make substantial or meaningful change in the situation.