The Supreme Court, hearing petitions calling for the cross-verification of votes cast on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with paper slips generated through the VVPAT system, today highlighted concerns with the traditional secret ballot voting method.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, noting his and his colleagues’ experience, referenced past issues with ballot papers and said that the challenges faced during that era are still remembered.
“We are in our 60s. We all know what happened when there were ballot papers, you may have, but we have not forgotten,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna told Prashant Bhushan, counsel for one of the petitioners, Association for Democratic Reforms. Bhushan argued for a return to paper ballots citing the example of European countries.
“We can go back to paper ballots. Another option is to give VVPAT slip to the voters in hand. Otherwise, the slips fall into the machine and the slip can be then given to the voter and it can be put into the ballot box. Then the VVPAT design was changed, it had to be transparent glass, but it was changed to dark opaque mirror glass where it is only visible when the light is on for second seconds,” Bhushan said, according to NDTV.
Responding to comparisons with Germany, Justice Dipankar Datta pointed out to Bhushan the disparity in population size between Germany and India.
“Ninety-seven crore is the total number of registered voters. We all know what happened when there were ballot papers,” Justice Khanna said.
Justice Khanna acknowledged the potential for human error and intervention, “which includes biases as well”. “Machine normally without human intervention will give you accurate results. Yes, the problem arises when there is human intervention or (a human) makes unauthorised changes when they are around the software or machine, if you have any suggestion to avert this, then you can give us that,” he said.
Bhushan then referenced research suggesting vulnerabilities in EVMs and criticised the limited sampling of VVPAT machines for verification. He proposed allowing voters to personally deposit VVPAT slips into the ballot box to enhance transparency and trust in the electoral process.
Justice Dipankar Datta cautioned against drawing parallels between the Indian electoral system and those of foreign nations, urging trust in the domestic framework. “My home state West Bengal’s population is more than that of Germany. We need to trust someone. Don’t try to bring down the system like this. Don’t cite such examples. European examples don’t work here,” he said.
Turning to the Election Commission of India, the court sought clarification on the voting process, EVM storage, and vote counting procedures. Justice Khanna highlighted the absence of stringent penalties for EVM tampering, stressing the necessity for a deterrent to uphold the integrity of the electoral process.
VVPAT, or Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail, provides voters with the opportunity to verify that their votes have been accurately recorded. It generates a paper slip that is securely stored and can be accessed in case of disputes. Amid concerns raised by the opposition regarding the reliability of the EVM system, the petitions call for the cross-verification of each vote.
The petitions, filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and activist Arun Kumar Agarwal, advocate for the counting of all VVPAT slips. While Agarwal seeks comprehensive verification, the ADR’s plea urges the court to direct the Election Commission and the Centre to ensure voters can confirm that their votes have been accurately recorded, as mandated by previous court directives. The petition underscores the need for voters to verify that their votes have been “counted as recorded,” a vital aspect of voter verifiability that the current legal framework fails to address adequately.
“However, there is a complete vacuum in law as the ECI has provided no procedure for the voter to verify that her vote has been ‘counted as recorded’ which is an indispensable part of voter verifiability. The failure of the ECI to provide for the same is in the teeth of purport and object of the directions issued by this Court in… Subramanian Swamy versus Election Commission of India (2013 verdict),” the plea said.