Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Seeking Return To Paper Ballot And 100% Cross-Verification Of EVM Votes With VVPAT

The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta observed, “With regard to the EVMs the three pleas taken that we should return to the paper ballot system…their should be 100% counting for voter-verifiable paper trail machines counting electronic…we have rejected all of them.”

The Court gave further directions, “ We have given two directions: The symbol loading units shall be sealed and secured in container… the Candidates or their representatives shall sign the seal. The 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 after the declaration of results…. All candidates shall have the option to be present at the time of verification. the district election officer shall certify the authenticness of the burnt memory…All the representative shall have the option to be present at the time of verification…expenses shall be refunded in case EVMs are found to be tampered.”

The Bench also directed that the burnt memory in the microcontroller unit should be checked by the team of engineers.

Justice Datta said, “I have concluded by observing that while maintaining a balance perspective is crucially and evaluating systems or institutions, blindly disgusting any aspect of this system can breed unwarranted scepticism and impede progress, instead of critical yet constructive approach, guided by evidence and reason, should be followed to make room for meaningful improvements and to ensure the system stability and effectiveness. We the citizens, the judiciary and the elected representatives or even the electoral machinery democracy is all about striving to build harmony and trust between all its pillars…We can strengthen the foundations of our democracy and ensure that the voices and choices of all citizens are valued and respected with each pillar fortifying our democracy stance robust. I conclude with the hope and trust that the system info shall not fail the electorate and the mandate of the voting public shall be fully reflected in the votes cast and counted”.

On the last day of the hearing, while reserving the judgment, had remarked that they are not the controlling authorities of elections and therefore, cannot control another constitutional authority.

The Bench also told Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for Association For Democratic Reforms, on his contrary remarks to the clarification given by the Election Commission of India, that if he is already predisposed about a particular thought process, then they are not here to change his thought process.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for Association For Democratic Reforms, referred to the RTI reply about the microcontroller of Bharat Electronics and submitted, “This microcontroller has a flash memory also so therefore to say that this microcontroller is not reprogrammable is not correct. That is exactly what the citizen commission also said after examining…flash memory is always reprogrammable”

In the second session, Nitish Vyas, who is a Senior Duty Election Commissioner appeared before the Court and responded to the questions asked by the Bench.

During the first session of the hearing, the Court today sought clarification from the Election Commission on certain aspects regarding the functioning of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), including whether the microcontrollers fitted in them are reprogrammable, and summoned a senior poll panel official at 2 pm.

On April 18, 2024, the Court had heard the arguments at length and reserved the judgment on petitions seeking 100% verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre had contended that filing of such petitions has an impact on the voters and voter turnout.

The Supreme Court had also remarked that if there is any gap between the Register of votes and the Account of votes counted, and if there are any additional votes registered, then such polling will be bogus and a matter of concern.

Nitish Vyas had appeared before the Court and explained the workings of the EVMs, Control Unit and VVPAT. He had also submitted that all the polls are secured and kept in custody with the Returning Officer. He had discussed the working of the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) and the Control Unit that gives commands to VVPAT to print it.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan had cited a report where mock polls were conducted in Kasaragod, Kerala on April 17 and he alleged that more than four EVMs registered votes in favour of one party i.e. Bhartiya Janta Party. The Bench then asked ECI to check the issue. Consequently, after some time, the ECI denied the authenticity of the report.

The VVPAT is an independent vote verification system which enables an elector to see whether his vote was cast correctly. It generates a paper slip which can be viewed by the voter. It is kept in a sealed cover and can be opened in case of a dispute. The seven-phase Lok Sabha polls will begin on April 19.

The Apex Court on April 16, 2024 had heard the submissions made by the Petitioners in the matter.

On April 1, 2024, the Apex Court had sought responses from the Election Commission and the Centre on a plea by activist Arun Kumar Agrawal seeking a complete count of VVPAT slips in polls as opposed to the current practice of tallying slips from only five randomly selected EVMs from each assembly segment comprising a parliamentary constituency.

In July 2023, the Court had sought responses from the ECI in the matter.

Cause Title: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission Of India and Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 434 of 2023)