New Delhi, April 26. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea to do away with the electronic voting system (through Electronic Voting Machines or EVMs) and return to the old paper ballot system.
The court also rejected alternate pleas to allow for 100 per cent verification of VVPATs (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) to prevent rigging or allow the voter to personally verify his vote.
A two-judge of the bench concurred in rejecting an additional demand to ensure that the glass window on the VVPAT was transparent. It was made translucent/tinted in 2017.
This deprived the voter from knowing whether the vote cast by him was actually registered and counted, a plea filed by the Association for Democratic Rights (ADR), had claimed.
Currently, only one randomly chosen EVM machine is subjected to VVPAT audit in randomly chosen five different Assembly segments of a parliamentary constituency.
There have been multiple pleas in the courts over the years to have this increased to 10 per cent of the votes to ally voter fears of rigging but to no avail.
COURT REJECTS PLEA TO RETURN TO PAPER BALLOTS
“We must reject as foible and unsound the submission to return to the ballot paper system. The weakness of the ballot paper system is well known and documented.
“In the Indian context, keeping in view the vast size of the Indian electorate of nearly 97 crores, the number of candidates who contest the elections, the number of polling booths where voting is held, and the problems faced with ballot papers, we would be undoing the electoral reforms by directing reintroduction of the ballot papers.
“EVMs offer significant advantages. They have effectively eliminated booth capturing by restricting the rate of vote casting to 4 votes per minute, thereby prolonging the time needed and thus check insertion of bogus votes. EVMs have eliminated invalid votes, which were a major issue with paper ballots and had often sparked disputes during the counting process.”
“Furthermore, EVMs reduce paper usage and alleviate logistical challenges. Finally, they provide administrative convenience by expediting the counting process and minimizing errors.”
An overly liberal approach could cause confusion and delay — hindering the election process and dissuading others from casting their votes, the court said.
EVMS ARE SIMPLE, SECURE AND USER-FRIENDLY
“In our considered opinion, the EVMs are simple, secure and user-friendly. The voters, candidates and their representatives, and the officials of the ECI are aware of the nitty-gritty of the EVM system. They also check and ensure righteousness and integrity.”
Moreover, the incorporation of the VVPAT system fortifies the principle of vote verifiability, thereby enhancing the overall accountability of the electoral process, the court said.
REPEATED CHALLENGES TO EVMS BASED ON SUSPICION, DOUBT ARE UNDESIRABLE
“… Repeated challenges (to EVMs) based on suspicion and doubt, without any cogent material and data, are execrable and undesirable,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed in his judgement.
It is not possible to pre-program the EVM in a spurious manner, he said.
“EVMs are standalone machines which cannot be connected to internet. The EVMs do not have any ports so as to enable a person to have access to the burnt memory. It flows from the above discussion that the possibility to hack or tamper with the agnostic firmware in the burnt memory to tutor/favour results is unfounded.
Accordingly, the suspicion that the EVMs can be configured/manipulated for repeated or wrong recording of vote(s) to favour a particular candidate should be rejected.”
NO MISMATCH OR DEFECT FOUND IN EVMS
There is not even a single case in which any mismatch or defect was found, Justice Khanna said.
“EVMs have been subjected to test by technical experts committee from time to time. These committees have approved and did not find any fault with the EVMs. The EVMs currently in use are designed by engineers of BHEL and ECIL. These designs are vetted by the technical experts committee.”
Justice Khanna acknowledged the right of the voter to question the working of EVMs, which are but an electronic device that has a direct impact on election results but said this cannot translate into 100% counting of VVPAT slips, or a right to physical access to the VVPAT slips, which the voter puts in the drop box.
100 PER CENT VERIFICATION WILL DELAY RESULTS, LEAD TO HUMAN ERRORS, MISCHIEF
Hundred per cent verification will increase the time for counting and delay declaration of results. The manpower required would have to be doubled, the court said.
“Manual counting is prone to human errors and may lead to deliberate mischief. Manual intervention in counting can also create multiple charges of manipulation of results. Further, the data and the results do not indicate any need to increase the number of VVPAT units subjected to manual counting.”
“… it is also necessary to exercise care and caution when we raise aspersions on the integrity of the electoral process. Repeated and persistent doubts and despair, even without supporting evidence, can have the contrarian impact of creating distrust. This can reduce citizen participation and confidence in elections, essential for a healthy and robust democracy.
To us, it is apparent that a number of safeguards and protocols with stringent checks have been put in place. Data and figures do not indicate artifice and deceit. Reprogramming by flashing, even if we assume is remotely possible, is inhibited by the strict control and checks put in place.
Imagination and suppositions should not lead us to hypothesize a wrong doing without any basis or facts. The credibility of the ECI and integrity of the electoral process earned over years cannot be chaffed and over-ridden by baroque contemplations and speculations.
DIRECTIONS TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN INTEGRITY OF POLL PROCESS
The court did though pass two directions to “further strengthen the integrity of the election process”. On completion of the symbol loading process in the VVPATs undertaken on or after 01.05.2024, the symbol loading units shall be sealed and secured in a container, it said.
The candidates or their representatives shall sign the seal. The sealed containers, containing the symbol loading units, shall be kept in the strong room along with the EVMs at least for a period of 45 days post the declaration of results. They shall be opened, examined and dealt with as with EVMs.
The burnt memory/microcontroller in 5% of the EVMs, that is, the control unit, ballot unit and the VVPAT, per assembly constituency/assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency shall be checked and verified by the team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVMs after the announcement of the results, for any tampering or modification, on a written request made by candidates who have the second and third highest votes behind the highest polled candidate, it said.
Such candidates or their representatives shall identify the EVMs by the polling station or serial number. All the candidates and their representatives shall have an option to remain present at the time of verification. Such a request should be made within a period of 7 days from the date of declaration of the result.
The District Election Officer, in consultation with the team of engineers, shall certify the authenticity/intactness of the burnt memory/ microcontroller after the verification process is conducted, the court said.
The actual cost or expenses for the said verification will be notified by the ECI, and the candidate making the said request will pay for such expenses. The expenses will be refunded, in case the EVM is found to be tampered.
The other judge on the bench Justice Dipankar Gupta noted that EVMs were used in multiple countries in varying degrees.
Use of EVMs in elections in India are not without its checks and balances, he said. Reasonable measures to ensure transparency, such as tallying 5% VVPAT slips with votes polled, are already in place. An election petition can also be filed not just by an aggrieved candidate, but also by a voter, within 45 days from the date of declaration of the result of election, he noted.
Since there is already a remedy in law to allay the fears if and when a discrepancy in the results arises, the courts are not powerless to uphold the sanctity of the democratic process by appropriate intervention, Justice Gupta said.
EVMS HAVE STOOD TEST OF TIME
“EVMs have stood the test of time and the increased voting percentage is sufficient reason for us to hold that the voters have reposed faith in the current system and that the report to the contrary, which has been relied on, merits outright rejection.
Thus, it is manifest that there is in place a stringent system of checks and balances, to prevent any possibility of a miscount of votes, and for the voter to know that his/her vote has been counted. There can be no doubt that such a system, which is distinctly more satisfactory compared to the system of the yester-years, suitably satisfies the voter’s right under Article 19(1)(a) to know that his/her vote has been counted as recorded.”
CAN’T CALL INTO QUESTION THE ELECTION PROCESS
“The Republic has prided itself in conducting free and fair elections for the past 70 years, the credit wherefor can largely be attributed to the ECI and the trust reposed in it by the public. While rational scepticism of the status quo is desirable in a healthy democracy, this court cannot allow the entire process of the underway General Elections to be called into question and upended on mere apprehension and speculation of the petitioners.”
“The petitioners have neither been able to demonstrate how the use of EVMs in elections violates the principle of free and fair elections; nor have they been able to establish a fundamental right to 100% VVPAT slips tallying with the votes cast. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioners’ apprehensions are misplaced.”
“Reverting to the paper ballot system, rejecting inevitable march of technological advancement, and burdening the ECI with the onerous task of 100% VVPAT slips tallying would be a folly when the challenges faced in conducting the elections are of such gargantuan scale.
Going forward, unless substantial evidence is presented against the EVMs, the current system will have to persist with enhancements. Regressive measures to revert to paper ballots or any alternative to the EVMs that does not adequately safeguard the interests of Indian citizens have to be eschewed.”
“I conclude with the hope and trust that the system in vogue shall not fail the electorate and the mandate of the voting public shall be truly reflected in the votes cast and counted.”
