Editorial 1 : Sounding the gavel on curative jurisdiction
Context
In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has exercised its "extraordinary powers" through a curative petition to overturn its previous judgement.
Definition
- A curative petition is a legal recourse available after the dismissal of a review plea against a final conviction.
- Constitutionally, a final ruling of the Supreme Court can typically be challenged only through a review petition, and even then, only on narrow procedural grounds.
- However, the curative petition serves as a sparingly used judicial innovation to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice.
- It aims to prevent miscarriage of justice and deter abuse of the legal process.
- Curative petitions are typically decided by judges in chambers, though open-court hearings may be granted upon specific request.
- Principles governing curative petitions were established by the Supreme Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs Ashok Hurra & another Case, 2002.
Criteria for Entertaining a Curative Petition
- It must be demonstrated that there was a breach of principles of natural justice, such as the petitioner not being heard before the court passed an order.
- It may be admitted if there are grounds to suspect bias on the part of the judge, such as failure to disclose relevant facts.
The Guidelines
- The petition must be accompanied by a certification from a senior advocate, highlighting substantial grounds for its consideration.
- It is first circulated to a bench comprising the three senior-most judges, along with the judges who passed the original judgement, if available.
- The bench may appoint a senior counsel to assist as amicus curiae at any stage of the consideration of the curative petition.
- If the bench determines that the petition lacks merit and is vexatious, it may impose exemplary costs on the petitioner.
- The Supreme Court emphasises that curative petitions should be rare and reviewed with caution to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Constitutional Provisions Behind Curative Petition
- The concept of the of the petition is guaranteed under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution.
- Article 145 of the Indian Constitution governs the making of laws and rules.
- It means that the Supreme Court has the authority to review every judgment
Special powers of Supreme Court
- Dispute Resolution: Article 131 of the Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between States themselves, involving legal rights.
- Discretionary Jurisdiction: Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, or order made by any court or tribunal in India. This power does not apply to military tribunals and court-martials.
- Advisory Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution, where the President of India can refer specific matters to the Court for its opinion.
- Contempt Proceedings: Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to punish for contempt of court, including contempt of itself, either suo motu or petition by the Attorney General, Solicitor General, or any individual.
Conclusion
In the Indian legal system, a curative petition is a novel idea and judicial innovation. It is regarded as the very last and only option. However, if discussing the context of justice, such as in the Nirbhaya case, it offers a setback for the judges to deliver the verdict promptly. Inconsistencies abound in our judicial system. It provides a means for a criminal to avoid punishment.
Editorial 2 : Trust in machines
Context
It is reassuring that the Supreme Court found nothing to impair faith in EVMs.
What are VVPATs?
- VVPAT machines, attached to EVMs, print a slip showing the voter’s choice, allowing voters to verify their vote for seven seconds before the slip drops into a secured box.
- The concept emerged in 2010, leading to the creation of prototypes by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India (ECIL). After trials and feedback, the design was approved in February 2013.
- The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, were amended to incorporate VVPATs. They were first used in Nagaland’s Noksen Assembly constituency in 2013 and were implemented in all polling stations by the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
It’s Working
- Voters interact with an electronic voting machine to cast their ballots, selecting their preferred candidates or options using the machine's interface.
- Simultaneously, the VVPAT system generates a physical paper receipt, detailing the voter's selections. This receipt typically displays the names, symbols, and serial numbers of the chosen candidates.
- Voters can visually inspect the printed receipt through a transparent window to ensure that their votes have been accurately recorded by the electronic system. This receipt is visible for 7 seconds.
- The paper receipts serve as a tangible audit trail, enabling authorities to cross-verify electronic results with physical records.
Need for VVPAT:
- Expense of every EVM is between Rs. 15,000 to 20,000 and its maintenance cost is around Rs. 1000/- per year which has led to a high cost of conducting elections in India but this money will be saved through VVPAT system.
- Election expenditure in India ranges between 5000 crores to 10000 crores which is quite high when compared with the countries like Germany, USA, Canada and France which spend 300 crores each for election purposes respectively. This huge expenditure can be reduced by implementing this VVPAT system in elections.
- VVPAT system can reduce the chances of electoral frauds and rigging as it has no scope for cheating as it gives a paper copy of vote cast by voter and a voter can check his vote before casting. Hence, VVPAT is beneficial for everyone in India.
Election Commission’s Stance
- The EC argues that the current practice of verifying VVPATs from five polling stations per Assembly seat exceeds the ISI’s recommendation.
- The EC highlights that in past elections, no cases of vote misattribution were detected in VVPAT checks, attributing discrepancies to human errors.
- The EC views 100% VVPAT verification as regressive, time-consuming, and prone to human error, akin to manual ballot voting.
Conclusion
- The discussion around VVPAT verification reflects ongoing concerns about ensuring electoral integrity and public trust in the voting process.
- Balancing the need for efficient electoral processes with the imperative of maintaining voter confidence remains a critical challenge for the ECI and political parties in India.