THE honourable Supreme Court did very well to show the mirror to the Opposition by stating, ‘What happens when you win the election -- ‘EVMs are not tampered. When you lose the elections, EVMs are tampered.’ And then came the dismissal of a petition seeking a reversion to ballot paper system in elections in the country. This stance made the whole country extremely happy --- that the honourable Supreme Court put in words what the common people often felt about the Opposition’s cantankerous but selective tantrum about tampering of the Electronic Voting Machines. Of course, the Opposition may never learn right lessons even from the Supreme Court’s terse observation. Yet, the comment by the apex court has served well a genuine national interest -- particular on the Constitution Day. For, the observation recommends -- without using those many words -- a better understanding of the complex issue of constitutional morality. For, when a party -- any party to an issue -- distorts the issue as part of its exigency, it only hurts the core principle of morality, in this case the constitutionality of an arrangement -- here, the usage of the technology of EVMs. It is unfortunate that the Opposition camp has often sought to distort reality to foist on the country a false narrative of its own (non-existent!) righteousness.

 

That was why the honourable Supreme Court felt compelled to point to the double-standards of the Opposition -- ‘What happens when you win the election -- ‘EVMs are not tampered. When you lose the elections, EVMs are tampered.’ By showing this mirror to the Opposition, the Supreme Court has also brought to fore -- though indirectly -- the flaw in the Opposition narrative about the Government trying to alter the Constitution of India. We are reminded of a statement which former Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud made about the role of the judiciary in a democratic system. In effect, he said that the judiciary could not be expected to conduct itself like an Opposition party in a democracy. This assertion came at possibly the most opportune moment. For, as everybody is aware of, the Opposition and its intellectual pointsmen have even rued that the judiciary is not asking questions to the Government. Such a narrative needs an apt answer, and Mr. Justice Chandrachud has sought to offer exactly that.

 

This brings us to another important aspect of the Opposition narrative -- of questioning every possible official or constitutional institution or arrangement, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Executive, the Armed Forces ... ! The selective doubts on the correctness of the EVMs also have stemmed from this attitude or tendency. The purpose behind questioning the integrity or intentions of institutions is only to push the nation and the larger society to an irredeemable point of anarchy -- in a planned manner. It is in the light of this awareness that we appreciate the firm stand of the honourable Supreme Court about the EVMs. In fact, the Opposition -- or all those who raise doubts about the national institutions and their functioning -- gives an impression that it does not have a concrete purpose behind its own action thought and action, except that it wants to disturb the system, and possibly twist it to its own favour of grabbing power eventually. This camp does not seem to realise that even if it managed to grab power through such means, it will land in a very tough situation. For, with most institutions having been distorted beyond recognisable shape, it will have to contend with a network of institutions in whose integrity the nation has no confidence and faith. The Supreme Court’s poser to the Opposition in regard to use of EVMs means showing the mirror or telling home truth.