Why Should Modi Worry When He Has Tampered EVMs and EC?

The assertion that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has no need to worry because of tampered Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Election Commission (EC) seeking his assistance is an oversimplification of a complex legal and political landscape. In India, the Prime Minister is not above the law and is subject to legal scrutiny when faced with credible allegations of malfeasance.

Legal Precedents: When False Accusations Are Investigated

A notable precedent involving such a claim is the case of Harshad Mehta, a controversial stockbroker who made public allegations against then Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh (V P Singh). Mehta alleged that he had paid one crore (10 million rupees) to Singh at his residence, an accusation that led the government to release evidence to demonstrate that Singh was not present at his residence during the time of the alleged payment.

Despite having sufficient prima facie evidence, the government did not order a formal investigation by a special agency. However, this scenario raises a pivotal question: If credible evidence arises against any prime minister, as per legal principles, an investigation should be ordered.

Prime Minister Modi's Position in Legal Scrutiny

The prime minister cannot be assumed to be safer than others due to allegations of tampering with EVMs or the EC seeking his assistance. The Election Commission of India is mandated to ensure free and fair elections, and any tampering with electronic systems or evidence that suggests otherwise could be subject to legal and regulatory scrutiny.

While the statement “the EVMs are all for BJP and elections are just a mockery” implies that there may be systemic issues in the electoral system, such claims need to be backed by substantial evidence to trigger any formal legal action. It is the responsibility of independent agencies to investigate any credible evidence of electoral malpractice.

The case of BJP's dominance in recent years does not preclude an investigation into the alleged tampering. If there is credible evidence, such as tampering with EVMs or fraud within the EC, serious legal actions can and should be undertaken.

Supreme Court Scrutiny and Future Implications

The legacy of credible accusations against the prime minister could have long-term implications for the institutions designed to uphold the rule of law. The Supreme Court of India has a pivotal role in ensuring that the electoral process is transparent and fair.

For example, if there is evidence of tampering with EVMs or fraud by the EC, it could prompt the Supreme Court to scrutinize the election results. Such scrutiny could lead to the annulment of elections or the imposition of stringent measures to prevent future such incidents. The Supreme Court has the power to initiate its own investigations and can also order external agencies to conduct an inquiry.

The continued dominance of BJP in recent elections, while a significant political reality, does not absolve the government from addressing concerns about the integrity of the electoral process. If credible evidence is presented, the institutions established to ensure fair elections should be robust and unwavering in their pursuit of justice.

Conclusion

The belief that Prime Minister Modi should not worry about tampered EVMs and EC assistance is a misunderstanding of the legal and democratic framework in place. If credible evidence arises, the prime minister should not be assumed to be free from legal scrutiny. The integrity of the electoral process and the rule of law must be upheld, and this includes the possibility of investigating credible claims of electoral malpractice, regardless of the political alliances in place.