SC calls out Andolanjeevis
The Supreme Court verdict upholding EVMs came down hard on agenda driven activists for attempting to discredit Indian democracy. EPISODE #174
Dear Reader,
A very happy Monday to you.
Last week the Supreme Court rejected a fresh appeal questioning the efficacy of Electronic Voting Machines or EVMs, operational since 2000, and seeking a return to ballot paper.
In a stinging indictment, India’s apex court came down heavily on the selective and prejudiced outrage among andolanjeevis or activists who jump from one protest to another—in this instance seeking to undermine the credibility of the Indian electoral process on the eve of its 18th general election.
This week I explore the implications of this stinging rebuke from the Supreme Court and how it shrinks the space for activists, especially those fronting for vested interests to disrupt Indian democracy.
The cover picture of the Supreme Court of India is sourced from the website of the apex court.
Happy reading.
A Vote for EVMs
For the second successive general election, the run-up has been marred by agenda driven activists and self-appointed high priests of democracy in the West questioning India’s democratic credentials.
Till last week it was mostly a political slug fest between the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and its accusers—including sections of the opposition who have often alleged that they lost because the electoral process had been compromised.
This seasonal face-off acquired a new perspective last week, after the Supreme Court weighed in. A institutional intervention of this stature has put the lid on a debate, which sought to undermine the faith in Indian democracy.
The apex court delivered its judgement on an appeal filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-governmental organisation, claiming that the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) failed the smell test. The ADR petition filed against the Election Commission of India (ECI) was despite the fact that the Supreme Court has in the past already dismissed several such appeals.
Staying true to the spirit of its previous orders, the Supreme Court dismissed ADR’s appeal, but not without severe censures.
The tenor and tone of the order suggests that the country’s apex court has had enough of agenda driven activists, both within and outside the country. The singular message is ‘Enough is Enough’.
Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in going to court on what someone believes to be a violation of fundamental rights. It is just that this has become a national pastime for a select few. And, as the Supreme Court pointed out, in this instance it was timed to disrupt the general election.
Calling out Andolanjeevis
The Supreme Court verdict delivered by a two-judge bench came out in two parts. The first delivered by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and the second by Justice Dipankar Datta. While both judgements complemented each other, Justice Datta went that extra mile on misguided activism.
The order by Justice Khanna is a masterclass on the functioning and efficacy of EVMs. In my view, a must read.
Setting the stage for the verdict, Justice Khanna explained as to why the apex court took up the matter, despite previous judgements clearing use of EVMs. (The bold is my doing.)
“It is also necessary to exercise care and caution when we raise aspersions on the integrity of the electoral process. Repeated and persistent doubts and despair, even without supporting evidence, can have the contrarian impact of creating distrust.
This can reduce citizen participation and confidence in elections, essential for a healthy and robust democracy.
Unfounded challenges may actually reveal perceptions and predispositions, whereas this Court, as an arbiter and adjudicator of disputes and challenges, must render decisions on facts based on evidence and data.”
The Supreme Court is right. A persistent campaign of this nature seeds a negative narrative, even if there is no evidence.
For example, western media is laced with opinion and news pieces signalling the growing threat to Indian democracy. Sharing below a screen grab from a random google search for ‘New York Times Indian Democracy’.
The headlines say it all:
Arguing in the same refrain, Justice Datta said (The bold is my doing):
“I have no hesitation to accept the submission of senior counsel for the ECI that reverting to the “paper ballot system” of the bygone era, as suggested, reveals the real intention of the petitioning association (ADR) to discredit the system of voting through the EVMs and thereby derail the electoral process that is underway, by creating unnecessary doubts in the minds of the electorate.”
From here, the judge then went on to make a very damning indictment on andolanjeevis or activists whose business is to protest—be in constant outrage and hopping from one protest to another. (The bold is my doing.)
“It is of immediate relevance to note that in recent years, a trend has been fast developing of certain vested interest groups endeavouring to undermine the achievements and accomplishments of the nation, earned through the hard work and dedication of its sincere workforce.
There seems to be a concerted effort to discredit, diminish, and weaken the progress of this great nation on every possible frontier. Any such effort, or rather attempt, has to be nipped in the bud. No Constitutional court, far less this Court, would allow such attempt to succeed as long as it (the court) has a say in the matter.”
The judge did not stop here. Questioning the veracity of the research published by the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), which claimed that that majority Indians did not trust EVMs, Justice Datta argued:
“Over the years, more and more voters have participated in the election process. Had the voters any doubt regarding the efficacy of the EVMs, I wonder whether the voting percentage would have seen such increase.
EVMs have stood the test of time and the increased voting percentage is sufficient reason for us to hold that the voters have reposed faith in the current system and that the (CSDS) report to the contrary, which has been relied on, merits outright rejection.”
Highlighting the role of the ECI in conducting the arduous task of elections, Justice Datta noted (The bold is my doing):
“The Republic has prided itself in conducting free and fair elections for the past 70 years, the credit where for can largely be attributed to the ECI and the trust reposed in it by the public.
While rational scepticism of the status quo is desirable in a healthy democracy, this Court cannot allow the entire process of the underway General Elections to be called into question and upended on mere apprehension and speculation of the petitioners.”
What the Supreme Court has done through its judgement is to set up much needed guardrails for a public dialogue.
At present, thanks to the binary environment—’My way or the highway’—dialogue is almost impossible. I have argued previously too that the middle space is what provides the space for dialogue in any democracy.
Unfortunately, all over the world, including India, extreme views have encroached on the middle space. Exactly why you rarely see any meaningful dialogue. The rise of platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter have only accelerated this process by creating echo chambers for respective views.
As Justice Datta pointed out, in a democracy there is always room for making improvements to ensure the system’s credibility and effectiveness. This is a process of trial and error since all points of views and trade-offs are considered in a democracy. Tangential or angular views distort this debate. (The bold is my doing.)
“Be it the citizens, the judiciary, the elected representatives, or even the electoral machinery, democracy is all about striving to build harmony and trust between all its pillars through open dialogue, transparency in processes, and continuous improvement of the system by active participation in democratic practices.
Our approach should be guided by evidence and reason to allow space for meaningful improvements. By nurturing a culture of trust and collaboration, we can strengthen the foundations of our democracy and ensure that the voices and choices of all citizens are valued and respected.
With each pillar fortified, our democracy stands robust and resilient.”
In the final analysis it is clear that the apex court has delivered a very important judgement, especially at a time when a section of influential opinion makers have been questioning the bonafides of Indian democracy.
I hope this salute to India’s electoral process by the Supreme Court inspires you to brave the ongoing heat wave and go out and vote.
Recommended Viewing/Reading
Sharing the latest post of Capital Calculus on StratNews Global.
A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Kerala to prevail upon the union government to relax the cap on their annual borrowings. The judgement emphasised the need for binding fiscal guardrails in a federal set-up like India.
To understand the what and why of this judgement I spoke to Ashima Goyal. She is a professor of economics at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, a member of the Reserve Bank of India’s Monetary Policy Committee and someone who has done considerable research on this subject.
Very patiently, Ashima walked me through the consequences of the fiscally perilous path adopted by Kerala. And how political oneupmanship was leading to politics driving economics—fiscally ruinous populism being one such manifestation.
Sharing the link below. Do watch and share your thoughts.
Till we meet again next week, stay safe.
Thank You!
Finally, a big shoutout to Shashwathi, Premasundaran, Ranjini and Gautam for your informed responses, kind appreciation and amplification of last week’s column. Once again, grateful for the conversation initiated by all you readers. Gratitude also to all those who responded on Twitter and Linkedin.
Unfortunately, Twitter has disabled amplification of Substack links—perils of social media monopolies operating in a walled garden framework. I would be grateful therefore if you could spread the word. Nothing to beat the word of mouth.
Reader participation and amplification is key to growing this newsletter community. And, many thanks to readers who hit the like button😊.
Hi Anil, a great article once again! Thank you!
This was a welcome observation by the SC. The election process and counting of votes has become so much more efficient and is one of the best in the world. The counting of votes in the last elections in the US, showed the better option/method adopted by the Government in India. Quite similar to the ease with which over 1.2 billion people were vaccinated during the difficult period of Covid. The next step would be to have a single election, for both the Center and States simultaneously. Modernized India, that discards the label of developing, poor and backward, is beginning to hurt many vested interests, both in India and abroad; hence these anti national elements are in the habit of pulling down everything that sends a signal of technological advances. Topical and well composed. Excellent write up Anil.