Why Isn't the Election Commission Taking Action Against AAP for Raising EVM Suspicion Allegations?

The Indian Election Commission (EC) is an independent body exercising considerable authority in the realm of electoral affairs. If a political party finds any irregularities or raises questions about administrative machinery, it is legitimate for them to do so. However, in the recent debate surrounding the reliance on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has accused the EC of inaction. This article explores the legal and political perspectives on why the EC has not taken a criminal defamation action against the AAP in this context.

Legal and Political Context of EVM Tampering Allegations

The Indian Election Commission cannot file a defamation case against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) or its leader, Arvind Kejriwal. This is because an institution cannot claim defamation; only an individual can. Specifically, under the law, an individual’s right to preserve their reputation is protected by defamation, but an institution cannot sue for defamation. If AAP had accused an individual within the EC of corruption, that person could sue for defamation in their personal capacity, but the institution itself cannot.

The confusion arises as to why the AAP has not taken legal action against the EC. There are several explanations for this:

Proving the Proof

AAP party members have alleged that EVM tampering took place to favor the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Instead of filing a defamation case, they conducted an experiment to demonstrate that the machines could be tampered with. This shows that instead of seeking legal redress, AAP is trying to provide evidence of the claims they are making. By doing so, they are attempting to address the very issues that were raised, thus creating a scenario where the EC can be held accountable based on proof, rather than speculation.

Political Circumstances and Public Interest

The current political climate complicates the issue further. AAP claims that the current government is trying to manipulate the EVMs to win elections. However, the EC, by not taking immediate legal action, is attempting to identify the actual accused in the case of EVM tampering. This reflects a higher principle of allowing the evidence to speak for itself before taking legal action.

Incidents and Recent Developments

Manish Sisodia, the Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, has alleged widespread tampering of EVMs to favor the BJP. This claim adds another layer to the ongoing debate. Sisodia emphasized that the EC should answer the technical questions raised about the EVMs. He also noted that the AAP is trying to resolve a significant issue within democracy, yet people are questioning the motives behind these claims.

AAP MLA, Saurabh Bhardwaj, demonstrated how a dummy EVM could be tampered with during an experiment. This was followed by the EC dismissing the claim, stating it did not reflect actual EVMs. This back-and-forth further complicates the situation, as both sides present different narratives and evidence.

Conclusion: A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The question of whether the EC should take legal action or provide evidence to prove or disprove the tampering of EVMs is a complex one. The EC must balance its duty to protect the integrity of the electoral process with ensuring transparency and accountability. By allowing the debate to persist and encouraging demonstrations and evidence gathering, the EC is potentially paving the way for a more informed and transparent electoral environment.

The ongoing debate over EVM tampering highlights the need for greater transparency in the electoral process. Whether the EC takes legal action remains to be seen, but the focus on evidence and technical evaluations is crucial in upholding the democratic principles of fairness and integrity.