- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
EVM Tampering Apprehensions Unfounded and Unjustified: Gujarat HC
On Tuesday, the Gujarat High Courtdismissed a lawyer's petition raising apprehensions over malfunctioning and tamperability of electronic voting machines (EVMs). Advocate Khemchand Rajaram Koshti approached the High Court, challenging Rule 56 (D) (2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, insofar as it vested discretion in the Returning Officer to reject an application for counting of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
On Tuesday, the Gujarat High Courtdismissed a lawyer's petition raising apprehensions over malfunctioning and tamperability of electronic voting machines (EVMs). Advocate Khemchand Rajaram Koshti approached the High Court, challenging Rule 56 (D) (2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, insofar as it vested discretion in the Returning Officer to reject an application for counting of the printed paper slips in the drop-box of the Printer. Direction to the ECI to ensure mandatory counting of those printed paper slips was also sought by Advocate Khemchand Rajaram Koshti. The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Anant S. Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav, in a detailed judgement, observed that apprehensions of malfunction and tamperability of EVMs were completely unfounded and unjustified.
The court added that unlike in the use of ballot paper, EVMs had made voting much simpler and voter friendly.