The Supreme Court today denied requests for 100% verification of votes cast on electronic voting machines using paper slips generated using the VVPAT technology. The two-judge panel of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta issued concurrent but different decisions.
“While a balanced perspective is vital, indiscriminately rejecting a system can promote cynicism, thus constructive critique is required, whether from the judiciary or the legislature. Democracy is all on sustaining unity and trust between all of its pillars. “We can strengthen our democracy’s voice by cultivating a culture of trust and collaboration,” Justice Datta wrote in his decision. He further stated that the court’s approach in this case has been informed by evidence.
The Supreme Court did, however, issue two directives to the Election Commission. The court ruled that after symbols are loaded into an EVM, the symbol loading unit must be sealed and stored in containers. The candidates and their representatives must sign the seal. The court ordered that the sealed containers containing the SLUs be maintained in the storerooms with the EVMs for at least 45 days after the results are declared.
The court also stated that the burnt memory semicontroller in 5% of the EVMs, which are the Control Unit, Ballot Unit, and VVPAT per assembly constituency per parliamentary constituency, must be checked and verified by a team of engineers from the EVM manufacturers following the announcement of results. This check will be performed upon written request from applicants 2 and 3. A request of this nature must be made within seven days of the results being declared. The candidate making the request will bear the costs, and fees must be repaid if the EVMs are discovered to be tampered.
The petitions before the court requested a direction to cross-check every vote cast on EVMs with paper slips generated by the VVPAT system. Currently, this cross-verification is performed on five randomly selected EVMs from each Assembly constituency.
The Supreme Court previously stated that it is not the controlling authority for elections and cannot interfere with the operations of the Election Commission, which is a constitutional authority. It also asked if it could act based on mere suspicion.
In response to concerns voiced by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioner’s Association for Democratic Reforms, the court stated in the most recent hearing, “If you are predisposed about a thought-process, then we cannot help you… we are not here to change your thought process.”
In previous sessions, the petitioners addressed the question of public trust and drew parallels with European countries that had returned to the ballot voting method. The court rejected such analogies, noting that the challenges here are distinct. The Election Commission, on its part, claimed that the current method is foolproof.
An EVM consists of a control unit and a balloting unit. These are connected by a cable. These are also linked to VVPAT (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail) equipment. This machine allows a voter to know if their vote was successfully cast and got to the politician they favour.
