JUDGMENT : This is a Public Interest Litigation seeking for a declaration that use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) without VVPAT is unconstitutional and illegal in any election in the State of Manipur and also for a direction to the State to use Electronic Voting Machine (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system or in its absence to use traditional Paper Ballot System in any future election in the State of Manipur including 16th Lok Sabha Election, 2014. 2. In course of hearing Shri A. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as to how EVMs function and as to why it is necessary also to use the EVMs along with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that it is the right of a voter to know that the vote cast by him is registered and counted for the purpose of declaration of result. 3. Shri L. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Anand as well as Mr. S. Debendra, learned G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the prayer made in the PIL has been settled by the Apex Court and therefore no further order is required to be passed in the writ petition. 4. So far as the right of a voter is concerned, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr with Peoples Unijon for Civil Liberties & Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 2112 . The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted here: “The decision of even illiterate voter, if properly educated and informed about the contesting candidate would be based on his own relevant criteria of selecting a candidate. In democracy, periodical elections are conducted for having efficient governance for the country and for the benefit of citizens – voters. In a democratic form of government, voters are of utmost importance. They have right to elect or re-elect on the basis of the antecedents and past performance of the candidate. He has choice of deciding whether holding of educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his representative. Voter has to decide whether he should cast vote in favour of a candidate who is involved in criminal case. He has choice of deciding whether holding of educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his representative. Voter has to decide whether he should cast vote in favour of a candidate who is involved in criminal case. For maintaining purity of elections and healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates. Such information would include assets held by the candidate, his qualification including educational qualification and antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a criminal case and if the case is decided – its result, if pending – whether charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the Court? There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters. Article 324 operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation. The power of commission under Art 324 is plenary. Therefore it cannot be said that since there is no provision in the Act or the Rules, the High Court ought not to have issued directions in this regard to the Election Commission.” 5. A similar view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2003 SC 2363. Therefore, right of a voter to be satisfied that his vote is registered and counted for the purpose of declaration of result and know antecedents of a candidate contesting the election can never be in dispute. However, this is not the question raised in the writ petition. The only question raised is use of EVMs as well as Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail during election. By the Act 1 of 1999, Section 61A was introduced in the Representation of People Act, 1951. Under the said provision, giving and recording of votes by voting machine in such manner as may be prescribed can be adopted in such constituency or constituencies as the Election Commission may, having regard to the circumstances of each case, specify. Legality of the said provision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Chief Election Commission & Anr reported in 2002 (1) UJ 387 (SC). Legality of the said provision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Chief Election Commission & Anr reported in 2002 (1) UJ 387 (SC). It was held that with insertion of new provision of Section 61A use of electronic voting machine has become legal and the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai & Ors., 1984 (3) SCR 74 was not correctly decided. Constitutional validity of the Section 61A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 having been held in favour of such amendment in the above judgment, this question need not be reconsidered by this Court. 6. So far as use of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail along with the electronic voting machine is concerned, in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India reported in (2013) 10 SCC 500 the Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of the judgment held that Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail is an indispensable requirement of free and fair election. The confidence of voters in EVMs can be achieved only with the introduction of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail. EVMs with VVPAT system ensures accuracy of voting system. Having held so the Supreme Court passed the following directions:- “29. In the light of the above discussion and taking notice of the pragmatic and reasonable approach of ECI and considering the fact that in general elections all over India, ECI has to handle one million (ten lakh) polling booths, we permit ECI to introduce VVPAT in gradual stages or geographical-wise in the ensuing general elections. The area, State or actual booths are to be decided by ECI and ECI is free to implement the same in a phased manner. We appreciate the efforts and good gesture made by ECI in introducing the same. For implementation of such a system (VVPAT) in a phased manner, the Government of India is directed to provide required financial assistance for procurement of units of VVPAT.” Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for use of VVPAT system along with EVMs has also be considered by the Supreme Court in the above decisions and necessary directions have been issued. We, therefore, find that in view of the two judgments, no further direction is required to be issued in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition (PIL) is disposed of.