The Aryavarth Express
Agency(New Delhi): On Thursday, April 18, the Supreme Court decided to reserves its judgment regarding several petitions calling for 100% verification of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) data against Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPAT). This decision came after a comprehensive session, continuing from a previous half-day hearing on April 16. The petitions, initiated by the Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) and others, have prompted deep discussions within the Court.
The justices, Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, after engaging thoroughly with an Election Commission of India (ECI) official, sought to understand the operational and security specifics of EVMs. This interaction focused on ensuring the sanctity and transparency of the electoral process.
During the hearings, various suggestions were put forward by the petitioners’ advocates. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate on Record, recommended that the VVPAT screen’s light be kept on throughout voting to ensure visibility of the paper trail. Meanwhile, Advocate Nizam Pasha proposed that voters should physically handle the VVPAT slips to enhance transparency, though concerns about voter secrecy were raised by Justice Khanna.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that counting VVPAT slips post-election would add credibility to the results, treating the process as an ongoing improvement rather than a settled matter.
Controversies about EVM reliability were also discussed, referencing a report alleging vote miscounts in favor of a political party, which the ECI dismissed as “totally false.” The ECI emphasized the infallibility of the current system, noting the impossibility of EVM tampering and highlighting the cumbersome nature of VVPAT slip counting, which is not intended for regular tallying but serves as a verification method.
In response to the petitioners’ push for a return to paper ballots, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the ECI, defended the current system as reducing human error and maintaining electoral integrity. The court cautioned the petitioners against undue skepticism of the electoral process, encouraging a balanced view that acknowledges the ECI’s efforts to conduct fair elections.
