The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 27, 2026) asked the Election Commission to consider a petitioner’s representation to time-stamp Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips to record the exact moment an elector cast his vote on polling day.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the Supreme Court Registry to forward the petition and entire case records filed by businessman, Nalla Suresh Reddy, to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Mr. Reddy submitted that time-stamping of the VVPAT slips would be panacea for recurring controversies over “last-hour voting surges” and booth-level discrepancies. It would be a systemic addition to enhance electoral transparency.

“We have seen widespread doubts about a sudden jump in polling after 5 p.m. All that would be put to rest by time-stamping VVPAT slips,” senior advocate Devadatt Kamat submitted on the petitioner side.

The Government had notified the amended Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in August 2013, enabling the ECI to use VVPAT with Electronic Voting Machines during elections.

The petition said the 1961 Rules specifically mandate that names, serial numbers, and symbols of candidates should be displayed, but it did not call for recording the exact time of voting.

“This omission creates a significant audit gap,” the court recorded the petitioner’s argument in a detailed judicial order. The Bench further recorded that the petition has sought a modification of the 1961 Rules to introduce time-stamping of VVPAT slips.

The petition said the VVPAT slips, however, should not have any details to identify the voter, including the EPIC number or the name of the elector. The time-stamped VVPAT slip could be preserved for six months or more, the latter in case there was a dispute.

The court quoted the petition to note that though the issue was in furtherance of electoral reforms, accountability and transparency, it was a technical and policy matter which came exclusively within the domain of the ECI.

Referring the petition to the poll body on behalf of the petitioner, the court said it has not commented on the merits of the issue.