The Supreme Court of India: Supreme Corruption Institution?

The Supreme Court of India, often lauded as the guardian of the Constitution, has recently come under fire for decisions that critics claim prioritize institutional opacity over transparency and dismiss critical debates with rhetoric instead of evidence-based reasoning. These accusations raise pertinent questions about the judiciary’s role in maintaining democratic accountability.

The Case of Hidden Data: A Blow to Electoral Transparency

One of the most glaring controversies involves the Supreme Court’s refusal to release polling station-wise voter turnout data (Form 17C). The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) argued that such data could help address discrepancies of 5-6% between initial and final turnout figures, enhancing electoral transparency. However, the Supreme Court denied this request, citing logistical challenges and potential misuse of data.

This decision has drawn sharp criticism. How can data lead to misuse? Transparency advocates argue that data, in itself, cannot inherently lead to misuse—it serves as the foundation for accountability and transparency. Denying public access to such critical information fosters suspicions of electoral malpractice and fuels distrust in democratic institutions.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) defended its stance, claiming that Form 17C data is already accessible to candidates’ agents, implying a check is in place. However, making such data public would allow independent audits, fostering confidence in electoral processes. By refusing, the court appears to have undermined its own mandate to uphold transparency.

Booth-Wise Data Can Reveal Leads on EVM Manipulation

Transparency in the electoral process empowers citizens to hold institutions accountable. If the Election Commission of India (ECI) provided booth-wise data—including the location of polling booths, vote counts from each EVM, the votes each candidate received on each EVM and booth-wise turnout figures—the public could independently analyze and identify potential discrepancies or irregularities.

Currently, the ECI only provides vote data in the form of aggregated EVM rounds, which is insufficient for meaningful scrutiny.

Booth-wise data would allow experts, watchdog organizations, and even ordinary citizens to detect patterns that could indicate EVM manipulation. For instance, unusually high or low turnout figures at specific booths, discrepancies between turnout data and vote counts, or statistical anomalies could raise red flags, prompting further scrutiny.

If EVMs are indeed as secure and tamper-proof as the ECI claims, there should be no hesitation in releasing such data. Hiding this information raises suspicion and undermines public trust. Transparency not only strengthens democratic systems but also provides the ECI an opportunity to demonstrate its confidence in the robustness of EVMs.

Refusing to release booth-wise data contradicts the ECI’s claim of infallible EVM security. If the system is bulletproof, why the secrecy? Accountability demands openness, and in a democracy, withholding information only fuels doubt and speculation. Providing comprehensive booth-wise data would be a significant step toward restoring public faith in the electoral process.

EVM Debate: Science Dismissed, Whataboutism Adopted

The debate over the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) is another example where the Supreme Court faced criticism for its handling of concerns. In response to a petition advocating a return to paper ballots, the court dismissed the plea with a sweeping generalization: "When you win the election, EVMs are not tampered with. When you lose, they are tampered with."

Such remarks trivialize serious concerns raised by cryptographers and computer science experts globally. Most computer science and cryptography experts agree that no electronic system is entirely immune to manipulation. Internationally, many nations have reverted to paper ballots or adopted verifiable hybrid systems to enhance electoral integrity.

Will the Supreme Court take the time to attempt the given quiz on EVM science , share their score, and update their knowledge about EVMs? Click on The quiz link

Instead of engaging with evidence or expert analysis on EVM vulnerabilities, the court resorted to rhetorical deflections.

After Paul revealed he had been to over 150 countries, the bench asked him whether each of the nations had ballot paper voting or used electronic voting.

The petitioner said foreign countries had adopted ballot paper voting and India should follow suit.

The strange answer:

"Why don't you want to be different from the rest of the world?" asked the bench.

What it can be interpreted is:

So, if other countries are not committing election fraud, only India is different because it conducts election fraud. That is a great achievement for the country because India is, indeed, different.

Judicial Accountability: A Growing Concern. Can we Trust Judiciary?

These instances point to a broader issue: the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to engage transparently and scientifically with matters of public concern. Critics argue that the judiciary is increasingly shielded from scrutiny, with decisions reflecting institutional convenience rather than constitutional principles.

Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of democracy. Whether it is electoral data or the integrity of voting systems, the judiciary has a responsibility to lead by example. By refusing to embrace transparency and dismissing scientific arguments, the Supreme Court risks eroding public trust—a danger that no democracy can afford.

Responsibility of Political Parties in Releasing the Data

While the Election Commission of India (ECI) has a duty to publish Form 17C data as it is public information, political parties and candidates have an equally critical role in ensuring transparency. As participants in the electoral process, candidates are not merely passive competitors; they also act as inspectors of the process. This dual role places a responsibility on them to share their findings and reports with the ultimate authority—the public.

Candidates have access to Form 17C data, which includes crucial voter turnout information. Transparency advocates argue that political parties should publish this data regardless of whether the ECI fulfills its obligation to do so. The idea that political parties should disclose 17C data only in response to the ECI’s inaction is flawed. This data belongs to the public, and withholding it undermines the principles of accountability and trust.

By voluntarily publishing their inspection reports and turnout data, political parties can demonstrate their commitment to fair and transparent elections. Such proactive measures would not only bolster public confidence in the electoral process but also set a higher standard for institutional integrity, compelling the ECI and other stakeholders to follow suit.

Responsibility of Public: Public and Civil Societies Must Demand Booth-Wise Data

It is imperative for the public and civil societies to demand basic booth-wise data from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and political parties to ensure transparency and accountability in the electoral process. While we take pride in the act of voting—pressing the EVM button, flaunting our inked fingers, and sharing selfies on social media—the journey of our vote after that often escapes scrutiny. There is little concern or awareness about how our vote is counted, whether it aligns with the declared results, or if the process remains tamper-free. This complacency must change. By collectively demanding booth-wise data, such as vote counts for each candidate and turnout figures, citizens can reclaim their role as active participants in democracy, ensuring every vote truly counts.