Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Independent Audit Of EVM

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an independent audit of source codes of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra noted that the matter concerned sensitive policy issues and thus, the court was not inclined to interfere with the same. 
At the outset, the petitioner Sunil Ahya, appearing as party-in- person, asserted before the court that the 'source code' was like the brain of the EVMs and thus was required to be audited. He stated that there existed no formal audit report of the source code in any public domain and even when he filed an RTI application seeking for the same, the Election Commission of India (ECI) could not provide him with the same. In fact, he stated that he made three representations to the ECI but to no avail. 

Referring to such auditing as necessary for the "survival of democracy", Ahya urged the bench to consider his petition.However, the bench expressed its disinclination towards entertaining the PIL stating that there already existed requisite security audits for protection in such cases. The CJI said–

"Every time we put out even a new application in the Supreme Court, we have to go through a security audit...Nothing can happen. Rest assured, there are standard guidelines..."

However, the petitioner questioned–

"What standard guidelines? They're not in public domain."

At this juncture, the CJI underlined that such things could not be provided in the public domain as they could be misused by unscrupulous elements. He said–

"If I start putting out source code of e-filing in public, who knows who'll be able to hack it."

While the petitioner reiterated his submission and said, "we are voting in an EVM where the brain of the EVM system is not being audited", the court ultimately refused to entertain the PIL. The court noted that the matter bore on sensitive issues and on such a policy issues, the court was not inclined to issue a direction which has been sought. The bench added–

Petitioner places no actionable material before this court to show that ECI has acted in breach of its constitutional mandate...No material has been placed to show that ECI is not fulfilling its mandate.

Source