Writ Petitions Not Entertained on Mere Suspicion of Right Infringement: Justice Datta

The Supreme Court ruled that writ petitions alleging potential rights infringements without tangible evidence should not be entertained. Justice Datta emphasized that mere suspicion of a right being infringed is insufficient for filing a writ petition. The court rejected pleas for comprehensive EVM cross-verification due to lack of substantiated threats to voting integrity. The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary and should only be exercised when there is mala fide, arbitrariness, or breach of the law, or a credible threat to rights. The court did issue directions in the public interest based on concerns it had raised.

A writ petition ought not to be entertained if the plea is based on the mere suspicion that a right could be infringed, Supreme Court judge Justice Dipankar Datta said on Friday.

Justice Datta was part of the apex court bench which rejected pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using electronic voting machines (EVMs) with a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

''The mere suspicion that there may be a mismatch in votes cast through EVMs, thereby giving rise to a demand for a 100 per cent VVPAT slips verification, is not a sufficient ground for the present set of writ petitions to be considered maintainable,'' he said.

Writing his views in a separate verdict while concurring with the opinion of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who was heading the bench, Justice Datta said to maintain these writ petitions, it ought to have been shown that there exists a tangible threat of infringement. However, that has also not been substantiated, he wrote.

He said without any evidence of malice, arbitrariness, breach of law or a genuine threat to invasion of rights, the writ petitions could have been dismissed as not maintainable.

''But, considering the seriousness of the concerns that the court suo motu had expressed to which responses were received from the official of the ECI (Election Commission of India) as well as its senior counsel, the necessity was felt to issue the twin directions in the greater public interest and to sub-serve the demands of justice,'' Justice Datta said.

''Should mere suspicion of infringement of a right be considered adequate ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction? In my opinion, the answer should be 'no','' he said.

He said the suspicion that a right could be infringed and a real threat of infringement of a right are distinct and different.

''A writ petition ought not to be entertained if the plea is based on the mere suspicion that a right could be infringed,'' Justice Datta said, adding that to succeed in a claim under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, one must demonstrate either mala fide or arbitrariness or breach of a law in the impugned State action.

He said the writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on the mere asking of a litigant based on suspicions and conjectures, unless there is a credible or trustworthy material on record to suggest that adverse action affecting a right is reasonably imminent or there is a real threat to the rule of law being abrogated.

The top court delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions, including the one filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, which also sought a direction to return to the paper ballot system in elections.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)