SC Order on Petitions Challenging EVM Use Stumps Lawyers

New Delhi: The manner in which three petitions challenging the credibility of EVMs were wrapped up by the Supreme Court last week has left lawyers befuddled.

On August 9, a three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar, took up as many as four such petitions and the status of all the cases later showed as 'disposed of' on the court’s website.

But lawyers in two of these cases told CNN-News18 that they had no idea that their cases were being heard on that day and what orders were passed to disposed them of subsequently.

Of the four cases, the first was a plea confined to conducting Assembly polls in Gujarat using EVMs with VVPAT (paper trail) machines.

The other three petitions included PILs filed separately by ML Sharma, Ata-ur Rahman and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

These three petitions were listed last on August 4 when the court adjourned them for two weeks.

The bench had given PIL petitioners the liberty to file their written replies to the stand taken by the Election Commission and Law Ministry in their affidavits.

The court order dated August 4 had stated: "Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) seeks an adjournment, so as to enable them to file rejoinder affidavit. Prayer is allowed. Rejoinder affidavit be positively filed within two weeks from today. Post for hearing thereafter."

But these cases got listed again four days later.

On August 9, these three petitions were taken up along with another petition, which had sought direction to the EC for conducting upcoming polls in Gujarat using VVPAT (voter verifiable paper audit trail).

When the matter came up on the morning of August 9 before the bench, which also comprised Justices Adarsh K Goel and DY Chandrachud, the Election Commission submitted it had enough VVPAT machines for Gujarat assembly polls and that the first petition could, hence, be disposed of.

Lawyers in the other cases, however, pointed out that their cases had come up abruptly after being adjourned for two weeks.

But the bench was not satisfied with the submissions made by the counsel for the BSP and cautioned him against wasting the time of the court.

It then deferred the hearing for a day later, to August 10.

However, what happened in the next few hours remains a mystery for some of the lawyers in these cases.

"We got back knowing our cases had been adjourned till the next day. But suddenly, I started getting calls from other lawyers and media personnel asking if our petition had been disposed of," said a lawyer, who did not wish to be named.

Another lawyer told CNN-News18 that he had left for Mumbai to undergo a therapy after his PIL was adjourned for two weeks on August 4.

"When we asked others, we were told some BSP lawyer mentioned the case on August 9 at 3.30pm and the bench disposed of all the four cases by a common order. But five days on, even the order has been not released," rued one of the lawyers.

They were also of the opinion that if the court had to close all the cases based on affidavits filed by the EC and the Law Ministry, it could have been done even on August 4.

"The bench had still given to us two weeks on that day to counter the stand taken by EC and the Centre, and substantiate our cases against use of EVMs. We are perplexed if the cases have been disposed of. We may have to file a review petition once the court releases its order," said the lawyer.