1 week ago
118
The Supreme Court is scheduled on April 26 to pronounce its judgment on petitions seeking a more transparent system of voting to ensure free and fair elections.
The verdict coincides with the second phase of polling for the General Elections to the Lok Sabha.
Also read: A brief history of EVMs in India | Explained
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had held marathon hearings of petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Arun Kumar Agarwal claiming that the electronic voting machine (EVM) system was opaque and prone to rigging.
They had highlighted the fundamental right of voters to confirm that their votes have been accurately recorded.
Also read: EVM-VVPAT case | Cannot disclose ‘source code’ of EVMs, will result in misuse: Supreme Court
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the ADR, had suggested various measures such as giving electors a copy of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in order that they could personally verify their accuracy before they are put in sealed ballot boxes.
In the alternative, the petitioners had suggested more brightly lit screens for VVPATs to help voters clearly see their slips. They had also urged for a 100% cross-verification of the EVM vote count with the VVPAT paper slips. Mr. Bhushan had even suggested a revival of the paper ballot system.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, also on the petitioner side, had argued that a voter’s right to secrecy about his vote should not hamper his right to confirm his vote.
EC’s stand
The Election Commission (EC) fielded its senior official Nitesh Kumar Vyas to assure the court that the EVM system of polling was “nothing less than perfect”. There has never been a mismatch of votes polled and votes counted.
However, the court had reserved its judgment on April 18 with a quip that it was “not good to be over-suspicious about everything”.
The court had however reconvened on April 24 with specific queries for the EC about the EVM system, especially if the microcontrollers were reprogrammable. Mr. Vyas had returned to court to explain that individual microprocessors were used in ballot units, control units and VVPATs — all of which collectively form the EVM.
The senior official clarified that the microcontrollers were “one-time programmable” at the time of manufacturing. The microprocessors could neither be changed nor physically accessed.
