The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to the Election Commission of India to conduct an independent audit of the source code governing the Electronic Voting Machines, applying a particular standard, namely, IEEE 1028. The bench was of the opinion that the matter is a policy issue where the superintendence and control over the conduct of the elections lies with the Election Commission being a constitutional entity entrusted under Article 324 of the Constitution.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud thus while dismissing the plea, observed, “The petitioner has placed no actionable material on the record of the Court to indicate that the Election Commission has acted in breach of its constitutional mandate. Ultimately, the manner in which the source code should be audited and the way the audit should be dealt with bears on sensitive issues pertaining to the integrity of the elections which are conducted under the superintendence of the Election Commission. On such a policy issue, we are not inclined to issue a direction as sought by the petitioner. There is no material before this Court, at this stage, to indicate that the Election Commission is not taking suitable steps to fulfil its mandate”. The bench also comprised Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

In the matter, the petitioner, Sunil Ahya appeared in person before the bench. It was submitted by the petitioner that the source code must be independently audited and the report of the audit should be placed in the public domain. It was further submitted that if the source code is audited, the hash function signature would be available and it should be placed in the public domain.

It is to be noted that the petitioner had earlier moved a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Court before the General Election of 2019. However, the Court through its order dated April 8, 2019, considering the commencement of the General Elections, it was not possible for it to go into the issue raised in the PIL, with the liberty to initiate fresh action.

Pursuant to which, another PIL was instituted in which by an order dated February 24 2020, the Court had permitted the petitioner to move a representation to the Election Commission of India.

Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner was that he had followed up with a representation which was submitted on March 12 , 2020, with subsequent reminders on December 17, 2020 and March 9, 2021, but was still in the dark on what steps have been taken in the matter.

Cause Title: Sunil Ahya v. Election Commission of India

Click here to read/download the Order



Chief Justice of India D.Y. ChandrachudJustice JB PardiwalaJustice Manoj Misra

Agatha Shukla