The Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) found itself on the defensive on Wednesday after the petitioner’s counsel informed the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court that the local body laws in the State do not contain any provision allowing the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). This argument came in response to the SEC’s affidavit, in which the Commission claimed that Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines were not mandatory for local body polls and were also not technically feasible to use at present.

 

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, on Wednesday, directed the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) to file an additional affidavit by Thursday, after questions were raised about the legal validity of using EVMs in local body elections without Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines. The hearing was conducted before Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Rajnish Vyas. The matter was argued for nearly an hour, during which the petitioner’s counsel strongly objected to the SEC’s stand. In its earlier affidavit, the SEC had claimed that the use of VVPAT machines was not mandatory for local body elections and that it was not technically feasible to use them at present. However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the issue was not only about VVPAT but also about the use of EVMs itself. They told the court that none of the local body laws in Maharashtra mention the use of EVMs. According to them, the existing Acts only refer to ballot papers.

 

The counsel said, the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, and the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 all contain provisions only for ballot papers in elections. Since there are no rules or amendments permitting the use of EVMs, the SEC cannot conduct local body elections using EVMs, they argued. The petitioner also submitted that their main request is that the elections be conducted only through ballot papers. The petition was filed by Congress National Secretary Prafulla Gudadhe Patil, who challenged the SEC’s decision to conduct the elections without VVPAT machines.

 

According to him, holding elections without VVPAT violates the voters’ constitutional right to verify whether their vote has been recorded correctly. He claimed that the SEC had verbally announced its decision not to use VVPAT machines during a press conference in Nashik on August 5, 2025. The petition further stated that an RTI reply confirmed that no official written order exists regarding this important decision. The petitioner also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission of India (2013), where the court had called VVPAT an “essential element” of free and fair elections.

 

Therefore, the petitioner argued that using EVMs without VVPAT is against transparency and violates established legal principles. Adv Firdoz Mirza, Adv Pawan Dahat, and Adv Nihalsingh Rathod represented the petitioner while Adv Akshay Naik represented the SEC. Adv Naik argued that the petition does not specifically challenge the rules related to the use of EVMs and pointed out that certain positive provisions allow their usage. However, the court noted that the larger issue remains unresolved. After hearing both sides, the High Court asked the SEC to submit a fresh affidavit by Thursday and clarify the legal basis for using EVMs without VVPAT in the upcoming Maharashtra local body elections.