One Nation One Election: Supreme Court Seeks Union's Stand On Totalizer EVM Vote Counting

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to examine whether totalizer machines can be introduced for counting votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

The proposed system aims at preventing the voting pattern of individual polling stations from being identified, thereby protecting voters from possible intimidation, victimisation or reprisals after an election.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard a petition seeking the introduction of totalisers in the electoral counting process.

Senior Advocate DS Naidu. appearing for ECI told the bench, "We have filed an affidavit yesterday..we have pointed out some practical difficulties..a statutory amendment is required which is not in our domain..Ministers opposed..we appointed an expert committee..they also disagreed.."

Hearing this, the CJI said, "Why to deal with such a thing which can be detrimental to voters..manually when they count..they can see where tampering is there..even in machines..unfortunately it won't be possible with a totalizer.."

Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the petitioner went on to submit before court that the system would prevent post poll violence. "ECI has always supported totalizer till a few days back..Not a single expert has opposed this..," Upadhyay added.

In his plea, Upadhyay has stated, "Totalizer can count votes of 14 EVMs simultaneously. This way the results of votes in a group of EVMs can be taken without ascertaining the result in individual EVM corresponding to polling booth. Totalizer is connected to EVMs via cable and it can do sum of all the votes recorded for each of the candidates in 14 EVMs simultaneously. But, as per provisions in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, votes in the EVMs are to be counted rolling station wise, which leads to situations where voting pattern in various localities/pockets become known to everyone. This results in victimization discrimination and intimidation."

Court has further been told that the Election Commission of India, Law Commission of India and other Expert Committees on Electoral Reform have endorsed the suggestions regarding introduction of common electoral rolls for Parliamentary State Assembly and local body elections, use of Post Office for voter registration and Totalizer for counting the votes and all the elections on Sunday.

What does the plea seek?

The following prayers have been made in the plea filed way back in 2018:

1. Central Government and Election Commission to take appropriate steps to use Common Eectoral Rolls for Parliament, State Assembly and Local Body Elections;

2. Central Government and Election Commission to take appropriate steps to use Totalizer for counting the votes of Parliament, State Assembly, Local Body Elections;

3. Central Government and Election Commission to ascertain the feasibility of using the Post Offices as the Nodal Agency for voter registration and verification;

4. Central Government and Election Commission to ascertain the feasibility of holding the Parliament, State Assembly, Panchayat and Municipal elections on Sunday;

Election Commission of India's stand

The ECI by way of an affidavit filed on August 31, 2026 before the Supreme Court has argued that there is no provision in the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951 as well as the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, nor any allied enactment presently in force, containing any provision recognizing, regulating, or otherwise governing the use of a Totaliser in the counting of votes.

It is further submitted that the introduction of the Totaliser would necessarily require substantive amendments to the extant law, together with a corresponding revision of the statutory procedure governing the counting of votes. On the subject of election law, such an exercise is neither simple nor capable of being undertaken within a short span of time. The implementation of Totaliser, in the absence of a legal framework, without the underlying rules being first put in place would be premature and legally unsustainable, supreme court has been told.

ECI has also stated that independent of the constitutional, statutory and judicial concerns, the introduction of the Totaliser would also result in a material and substantive lowering of transparency in the counting process, having specific regard to the statutory safeguard presently embodied in Form 17C prescribed under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

Notably, Law Commission of India Member Hitesh Jain has strongly advocated for the implementation of simultaneous elections, describing it as a reform critical for governance, economic efficiency, and democratic accountability. Speaking on the subject, he remarked last year that the debate on “One Nation, One Election” is “no longer an academic discussion – the question is really pressing and before us.”

Earlier, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had told the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the One Nation One Election (ONOE) Bill that the proposed legislation does not violate the Constitution or its basic structure. However, he flagged key gaps that need to be addressed and called for important revisions to limit the powers conferred on the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Justice Chandrachud, who appeared before the JPC, emphasised that while the idea of holding simultaneous elections is constitutionally permissible, the Bill must avoid granting the ECI unchecked authority. According to sources, he was categorical that empowering the Commission to alter substantive constitutional timelines such as shortening the tenure of elected assemblies by issuing unilateral reports to the President would not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Case Title: Ashwini Upadhyay Vs Union of India

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: September 1, 2026