EVMs and VVPATs: what the Supreme Court actually ruled
Few topics generate more heat and less light. This is what the court said, and what it didn’t.
On 26 April 2024, a two-judge Supreme Court bench (Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta) dismissed petitions — led by ADR — seeking a return to paper ballots, voter self-verification of VVPAT slips, or 100% counting of VVPAT slips against EVM totals.
The court’s reasoning: a mere suspicion of a mismatch isn’t grounds to overhaul the system, and across crores of votes there were no proven EVM-VVPAT mismatches — except one 2019 case in Andhra Pradesh where a presiding officer forgot to delete mock-poll data.
What the court did order
It wasn’t a blanket dismissal of scrutiny. The court directed that the symbol-loading units be sealed and stored for 45 days after results, and kept a small VVPAT-verification check available to runners-up on request and payment.
So the honest summary: the court found no evidence of rigging and declined 100% counting — while adding transparency safeguards. Both halves matter.
Where legitimate scrutiny goes next
Trust in elections is itself democratic infrastructure. The constructive path isn’t viral doubt or blind faith — it’s open audits, published verification data, and election-commission transparency strong enough that no one needs to take the result on faith.
Sources · Free to verify
This is a sourced explainer built on public data — not original reporting. Every figure traces to a source above.