Supreme Court points out shortcomings of ballot voting

Court is hearing petition seeking cross-validation of EVM votes with VVPAT slips

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court today heard a petition seeking cross-validation of ballot papers on electronic voting machines (EVMs) with slips generated through the VVPAT system, pointing out issues with the secret ballot method.

“We are over 60 years old. We all know what happens when there are ballots, you may know, but we have not forgotten,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a lawyer for the Association for Democratic Reforms, one of the petitioners, told Prashant Bhushan. Mr Bushan argued how most European countries that had chosen to vote through EVMs could return to paper ballots.

“We can go back to paper ballots. Another option is to hand over the VVPAT slip to the voter in his hand. Otherwise, the slip falls into the machine and the slip is given to the voter who then puts it in the ballot box. Then the VVPAT design changed, it had to be clear glass, but it was changed to dark opaque mirror glass, which is only visible the second the light comes on,” he said.

When Mr. Bhushan cited the example of Germany, Justice Dipankar Datta asked what was the population of Germany. Mr. Bhushan replied that it was about Rs 6 crore and India had a electorate of Rs 50 to 60 crore.

“The total number of registered voters is Rs 97 crore. We all know what happens when there are votes,” Justice Khanna said.

When senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, counsel for one of the petitioners, said that votes for EVM should be counted with VVPAT slips, Justice Khanna replied: “Yes, VVPAT slips of Rs 60 crore should be counted. Is that right? “

The judge said human intervention “can cause problems and human vulnerabilities may exist, including bias”. “Typically, machines will give you accurate results without human intervention. Yes, problems arise when there is human intervention or (people) making unauthorized changes around the software or the machine, and if you have Any suggestions to avoid this then you can give us this,” he said.

Mr. Bhushan then read out a research paper on the possibility of EVM tampering. “When there are 200 such machines, they are counting only 5 VVPAT machines per assembly, which is just 5%, which does not make sense. The seven-second light can also lead to manipulation. Voters can be allowed to take VVPAT forms and submit them Put it in the ballot box,” he said.

Senior lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said: “I adopt everything Mr. Bhushan said. We are not saying there is any malice. The only issue is the voters’ disapproval of Confidence in your vote.”

The court then asked the Election Commission of India about the voting process, storage of EVMs and counting of votes. Justice Khanna noted that there was no strict penalty for tampering with EVMs. “This is serious. There should be fear of punishment,” he said.

Justice Dipankar Datta asked the petitioners’ lawyers not to compare Indian elections with foreign votes. “My home state of West Bengal has a larger population than Germany. We need to trust someone. Don’t try to destroy the system like this. Don’t cite examples like this. European examples don’t work here,” he said.

What is VVPAT?How’s it going

VVPAT (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail) enables a voter to see if the vote was cast correctly and for the candidate he/she supported. VVPAT generates a note that is kept in a sealed lid and can be opened in case of dispute. The petition calls for cross-validation of every vote, amid questions and concerns raised by the opposition about the EVM voting system.

The petition was filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and activist Arun Kumar Agarwal. Mr. Agarwal has asked for an inventory of all VVPAT slips. ADR’s petition seeks directions from the court to the Election Commission and the Center to ensure that voters can verify through VVPAT that their votes have been “counted into record”. The petition states that the requirement of a voter to verify that his or her vote has been “recorded as a vote” is satisfied when the VVPAT single bar is displayed for about seven seconds after pressing the button on the EVM through a transparent window.

“However, there is a complete vacuum in the law as the ECI does not provide any process for the elector to verify whether her vote has been ‘counted into record’, which is an integral part of the elector’s verifiability. The ECI failed to provide what this court found in …the same is true for the intent and purpose of the directions issued in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013 Judgment),” contended the plea.