The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions advocating for 100% verification of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) data alongside Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). Following a day-long hearing, which followed a half-day session on April 16, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta deferred the verdict on the petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) and others.
During the proceedings, the bench engaged in discussions with an official from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to understand the intricacies of the EVMs” security features. Advocate Prashant Bhushan recommended that the VVPAT screen”s illumination remain constant throughout the voting period, contrasting with the current practice of illumination for seven seconds, to enable voters to witness the slip”s cutting and descent.
Advocate Nizam Pasha proposed that voters should be permitted to physically retrieve the VVPAT slip and deposit it in the ballot box. When Justice Khanna raised concerns regarding potential breaches of voter secrecy, Pasha argued that safeguarding voters” privacy should not undermine their rights.
Bhushan referenced a report on mock poll results in Kerala, alleging extra votes for the BJP. In response, the court directed Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the poll body, to explain. The Election Commission later refuted the report as entirely false.
During the proceedings, the court inquired about the presence of software in the VVPAT printer. The Election Commission clarified that each PAT contains a 4 megabyte flash memory storing symbols, with the electronic ballot prepared by the returning officer and loaded into the symbol loading unit. Adding that nothing is preloaded, they explained that it”s not data but in image format.
When asked about the number of Symbol Loading Units created for polling, a poll body official said that typically one is designated per constituency, kept under the custody of the Returning Officer until the poll”s conclusion. However, when asked about the sealing process to prevent tampering, the Election Commission acknowledged the absence of such a procedure.
The Election Commission informed the court that all voting machines undergo mock poll processes, where candidates randomly select 5% of machines. This process is repeated on poll day, with VVPAT slips counted and matched. They reassured the court that machines are allocated to constituencies randomly, preventing the connection of spurious units.
Regarding concerns about tampering, the Election Commission said that the voting machines operate on firmware, which cannot be altered. They are stored in strongrooms locked in the presence of political party representatives, with the seal numbers checked upon arrival for counting.
In response to the court”s inquiry about the possibility of voters receiving slips after voting, the poll body expressed concerns over compromising vote secrecy and potential misuse outside the booth.
Addressing the issue of counting VVPAT paper slips, the Election Commission explained that the thin and sticky nature of the paper renders it unsuitable for counting, leading to longer processing times.
The Election Commission”s counsel dismissed the petitioners” call for a return to ballot paper voting as a “retrograde suggestion.”
