Delivering a verdict on the pleas for 100% cross-verification of EVM data with VVPAT records, the Supreme Court
Editor, Goemkarponn
has declined to increase the number of VVPAT slips undergoing count per assembly segment in a parliamentary constituency.
As mentioned in the earlier reports
, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta rendered two separate, concurring judgments in the matter. Although the prayers of the petitioners were rejected, two directions were passed relating to the storage of Symbol Loading Units and post-poll checking of 5% EVMs per assembly segment on request by runner-up candidates.
Amongst various other pleas, the petitioners sought counting of all VVPAT paper slips in elections, instead of verification of only 5 randomly selected EVMs in each assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency. However, this relief was denied by the court for the following reasons –
1. It will increase the time for counting and delay the declaration of results;
2. The manpower required for counting would have to be doubled;
3. Manual counting is prone to human errors and may lead to deliberate mischief;
4. Manual intervention in counting could create multiple charges of manipulation of results; and
5. The data and the results did not indicate any need to increase the number of VVPAT units subjected to manual counting
Pointing to the lack of data regarding the mismatch between EVM-VVPAT records, Justice Khanna said:
“The exercise of tallying 5% VVPAT slips with votes cast by the electors has not, till date, resulted in any mismatch…So long as no mismatch is detected even after tallying 5% of VVPAT slips, as directed in N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India, it would defy the sense of logic and reason of a prudent man to issue a Mandamus to the ECl to arrange for tallying 100% VVPAT slips on the specious ground of the petitioners’ apprehension that the EVMs could be manipulated.”
Notably, a voter’s fundamental right to ensure that his vote has been accurately recorded and counted as distinguished from a right to physically access VPAT slips in the following terms –
“While we acknowledge the fundamental right of voters to ensure their vote is accurately recorded and counted, the same cannot be equated with the right to 100% counting of VVPAT slips, or a right to physical access to the VVPAT slips, which the voter should be permitted to put in the drop box. These are two separate aspects – the former is the right itself and the latter is a plea to protect or how to secure the right.”
To briefly trace the genesis of the VVPAT mechanism, it was in Subramanian Swamy v.
Election Commission of India (2013) that the Supreme Court held ‘paper trail to be an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections and directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to introduce VVPATs.
Thereafter, the ECl framed and issued a Manual on Electronic Voting Machine and VVPAT, Guideline No.16.6 of which stipulated that only 1 randomly selected polling station in each Assembly Segment/Constituency shall undergo verification of VVPAT slips.
However, in 2019 petitions came to be filed [Ref: N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India praying for a minimum 50% randomized paper slip verification of EVMs. Through the judgment delivered in this case, the Supreme Court enhanced from 1 to 5 the number of random polling stations in each assembly constituency or each assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency subject to mandated verification of paper audit trail slips.
In the present case, the petitioners claimed that the current process of verification of only 5% of EVMs per assembly segment was deficient. However, pointing to administrative challenges that extensive cross-verification may pose as well as the lack of material to indicate that there has earlier been a mismatch between EVM-VVPAT data, the prayers for complete verification were denied.
Be that as it may, the court considered a suggestion of the petitioners and said that the ECI may examine whether a counting machine can be used for counting the VVPAT slips, instead of doing the same physically.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
