The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere pendency of an election petition cannot justify the blanket retention of every EVM and VVPAT stored within a district, observing that preservation must be confined to electoral material specifically connected with the election or proceeding for which preservation is required.

Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay made the observation while permitting the District Election Officer, Hooghly, to identify and segregate EVMs and VVPATs stored in connection with the 29-Arambagh (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, in the backdrop of pending election proceedings concerning the constituency.

The Court clarified that while machines connected with the election under challenge must continue to be preserved, electoral equipment having no connection with the pending election petition cannot be retained indefinitely merely because it happens to be stored alongside machines that require preservation.

"Preservation must relate to identified electoral material having a connection with the election or proceeding for which preservation is required," the Court held.

The Court was dealing with an application filed by the District Election Officer seeking release of VVPATs and defective EVMs, including pre-poll EVMs, for repair, reconditioning and subsequent use in elections. Permission was also sought to segregate the machines and shift them between designated warehouses.

The Court particularly distinguished between the electoral material involved in two separate election petitions.

EP No. 1 of 2019 concerns the election to the 28-Hooghly Parliamentary Constituency, while EP/4/2024 concerns the 29-Arambagh (SC) Parliamentary Constituency.

The Court held that the preservation directions issued in the Hooghly election petition could not, merely by their existence, require the continued preservation of EVMs and VVPATs belonging to a different constituency.

At the same time, since EP/4/2024 directly concerns the Arambagh election, machines used in that election may constitute evidence and must therefore remain preserved.

"An election petition brings the validity of an election before the Court," the Court observed, adding that electoral material relating to the election under challenge may constitute evidence in adjudicating the dispute.

The Court therefore directed the DEO to undertake a detailed identification and segregation exercise rather than permitting either blanket retention or blanket release.

Case: ARUP KANTI DIGAR vs MITALI BAG & ORS.

Case No: EP/4/2024

Click here to read order