The Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a plea seeking time-stamping of VVPAT slips to improve transparency in the electoral process, while asking the Election Commission of India (ECI) to examine the representation and take an appropriate decision on the issue.

The petition sought directions for systemic enhancement of electoral transparency by mandating time indication on VVPAT slips so that the exact time at which a vote was cast could be reflected in the paper trail. The petitioner argued that such a mechanism would address allegations regarding late-hour surges in voting percentages and turnout revisions after polling hours.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plea was not challenging any election result and was only seeking prospective electoral reform measures.

“We are only saying that the guidelines should be prospective. And what we are only asking, Lordships, that when the VVPAT slip comes up, the time stamping should be done so that, Lordships, now there are a lot of allegations that after 5 pm there is a sudden jump up of votes etc. All that will be put to rest.”

The petitioner also pointed out that in previous VVPAT-related matters, the Supreme Court itself had taken initiatives to improve transparency in the electoral process. “All the three times where your Lordships have put in place this VVPAT and improved upon its efficacy and transparency, your Lordships took the initiative,” counsel argued while requesting the Court to seek a response from the Election Commission regarding feasibility.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kany, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, however, observed that the issue raised involved technical and policy considerations falling within the Election Commission’s domain. Recording the submissions, the Court observed that the prayers raised by the petitioner regarding whether time-stamped VVPAT slips would be feasible “is essentially a technical and policy issue requiring examination by the Election Commission.”

Accordingly, the Court directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation and directed the Election Commission to consider it. The Bench noted that the petition concerned “the progress of electoral reform, integrity of the electoral process, and fairness and transparency” in elections.