Court Order Required for Post-Election EVM Verification Absent Prima Facie Evidence of Counting Irregularities

The petitioner, a candidate in the 2024 General Elections for the Kanker Parliamentary Constituency, filed an election petition alleging malice and irregularities by the Returning Officer

Specifically, he alleged discrepancies in EVM/VVPAT machine numbers between the "Second Randomization Report" and "Form 17C" across several assembly segments

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1/2024 seeking an interim order to direct the District Election Officer to conduct checking and verification (C) of the EVMs based on the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI

Respondent No. 1 opposed the plea, arguing it was a "fishing enquiry" to collect evidence and that the petitioner failed to follow the 7-day limitation period prescribed in the SOP

1. Whether the court should direct the rechecking and verification of EVMs and VVPATs at an interim stage based on alleged discrepancies in statutory forms prior to the recording of evidence

2. Whether the guidelines issued in Association for Democratic Reforms v. ECI entitle a petitioner to a court-ordered EVM verification as a matter of right during an election petition without prima facie proof of tampering

The court primarily applied the directives of the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India {2025 (2) SCC 732}, which allows for checking of 5% of EVMs per assembly segment upon a written request made within 7 days of the result declaration

It further relied on the principles established in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai {1964 SCC Online 249}, asserting that an inspection of ballot papers (or EVMs) cannot be granted to "fish out" evidence where material facts are not substantiated

Additionally, it applied R. Narayan v. S. Semmalai {(1980) 2 SCC 536}, which mandates that orders for re-counting or verification cannot be based on mere "possibilities of error" or speculation but must be proved with "absolute certainty" through cogent evidence

The court reasoned that the petitioner's request for EVM verification at this interim stage was premature

While the petitioner alleged discrepancies between the Second Randomization Report and Form 17C, the court held that such allegations do not automatically satisfy the requirement for a judicial order for verification

The court emphasized that in an election petition, the petitioner must first lead evidence—oral or documentary—to establish a prima facie case of material irregularity or error in counting

Relying on the Ram Sewak Yadav precedent, the court noted that a petitioner cannot use the discovery process to supply a lacuna in their petition

Furthermore, since the integrity of the election process must be maintained, verification cannot be ordered based on the "pure speculation" of errors in statutory records without trial

The holding clarified that such a direction requires prima facie material or evidence regarding discrepancies, which was absent at the interim stage

The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for verification after the recording of oral or documentary evidence during the trial if discrepancies are substantiated

The matter was listed for framing of issues on 15.06.2026