In the heart of New Delhi, the highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court, on the day of Friday, dismissed petitions advocating for thorough cross-verification of ballots cast via Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) alongside Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). A panel comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta jointly delivered their respective rulings on the subject.
In the pronouncement of the verdict, Justice Khanna articulated the court’s dismissal of all petitions, inclusive of those advocating for a return to traditional ballot papers in electoral processes. The apex court put forth two directives: firstly, the sealing of containers housing the symbol loading mechanism in the presence of electoral agents and candidates, ensuring their security for a period of 45 days; secondly, post the announcement of the election outcome, the verification of the control unit, ballot unit, and VVPAT by engineers from the manufacturing firms, to be conducted upon written request within 7 days of the result declaration.
The comprehensive judgment pertaining to this matter will be made available later in the day. Notably, the apex court issued two distinct and concurring judgments on the matter. Preceding this, a bench headed by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta had reserved their decision on a batch of pleas, urging for comprehensive cross-verification of EVM-utilized votes with VVPAT, post receiving responses to its inquiries directed at the Election Commission of India (ECI).
During the proceedings, the apex court iterated its inability to “govern the electoral process” or dispense directives solely due to raised doubts regarding the effectiveness of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The petitioners have alleged that these voting apparatuses are susceptible to tampering, thus potentially influencing electoral outcomes.
The apex court sought elucidations from a representative of the electoral body on five queries concerning the functionality of EVMs, including the reprogrammability of their microcontrollers. Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Nitesh Kumar Vyas, who had previously elucidated the EVMs’ operations to the court, reappeared to provide responses to the inquiries.
In response to the query regarding microcontrollers, the ECI’s official affirmed that they are programmed only once during manufacturing and are integrated into all three components of the EVMs: the ballot unit, VVPAT, and control unit. Emphasis was placed on the irrevocability of this programming.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO ‘Association for Democratic Reforms’, contested the accuracy of the ECI’s assertions, citing a report from an independent body to bolster his argument.
Bhushan contended that the report indicated the reprogrammability of the memory utilized in these units, suggesting the potential for malicious programs to be uploaded during symbol loading. Justice Khanna reiterated the court’s reliance on data and information furnished by the ECI, a constitutional entity, which maintains that the memory programming of an EVM is unalterable.
Addressing Bhushan, the bench asserted, “If you harbor preconceptions or biases, we are unable to intervene. We cannot alter your cognitive framework.” Justice Datta queried, “Can we issue directives grounded in suspicion alone? The report you cite maintains that there have been no instances of manipulation thus far. We lack jurisdiction over electoral proceedings. We are not the superintending authority over another constitutional entity.”