Supreme Court Flags Ballot Voting Drawbacks

New Delhi:

Listening to petitions searching for cross-verification of votes forged on Digital Voting Machines (EVM) with paper slips generated by way of the VVPAT system, the Supreme Court docket immediately pointed to issues with the key poll voting methodology.

“We’re in our 60s. Everyone knows what occurred when there have been poll papers, you’ll have, however we’ve not forgotten,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna informed Prashant Bhushan, counsel for one of many petitioners, Affiliation for Democratic Reforms. Mr Bhushan was arguing how most European international locations that had opted for voting by way of EVMs have returned to the paper ballots.

“We will return to paper ballots. Another choice is to provide VVPAT slip to the voters in hand. In any other case, the slips fall into the machine and the slip may be then given to the voter and it may be put into the poll field. Then the VVPAT design was modified, it needed to be clear glass, but it surely was modified to darkish opaque mirror glass the place it is just seen when the sunshine is on for second seconds,” he mentioned.

When Mr Bhushan cited Germany’s instance, Justice Dipankar Datta requested what’s Germany’s inhabitants. Mr Bhushan replied that it’s round 6 crore, whereas India has 50-60 crore voters.

“Ninety-seven crore is the overall variety of registered voters. Everyone knows what occurred when there have been poll papers,” Justice Khanna mentioned.

When Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, counsel for one of many petitioners, mentioned votes forged on EVMs needs to be tallied with VVPAT slips, Justice Khanna replied, “Sure, 60 crore VVPAT slips needs to be counted. Proper?”

The choose mentioned human interventions “result in issues and human weak point may be there, which incorporates biases as properly”. “Machine usually with out human intervention provides you with correct outcomes. Sure, the issue arises when there may be human intervention or (a human) makes unauthorised adjustments when they’re across the software program or machine, if in case you have any suggestion to avert this, then you definitely may give us that,” he mentioned.

Mr Bhushan then learn out a analysis paper on the opportunity of EVMs being tampered. “They’re solely counting 5 VVPAT machines per meeting when there are 200 such machines, that is 5 per cent solely and there may be no justification on this. The seven-second gentle can even result in manipulation. The voter may be allowed to take the VVPAT slip and put it into the poll field,” he mentioned.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, showing for one of many petitioners, mentioned, “I undertake the whole lot that Mr Bhushan says. We aren’t saying that there’s any malice. Solely subject is that of the boldness of the voter within the vote he has forged.”

The court docket then requested the Election Fee of India in regards to the means of voting, the storage of EVMs and counting of votes. Justice Khanna famous that there isn’t a provision for strict punishment for tampering with EVMs. “That is critical. There needs to be concern of punishment,” he mentioned.

Mr Sankaranarayan mentioned voters want bodily interface and verification. “Permit me to select up the slip and put it within the field,” he mentioned. The court docket responded that even when 10 per cent of voters increase objections, the entire course of will cease. “Is that this rational?” it requested. Mr Sankaranarayan replied, “Sure it should, I’m entitled to ask. I’m a voter, what do I acquire by intentionally stopping the method?”

Justice Dipankar Datta requested the petitioners’ counsel to not examine the Indian election with voting in overseas international locations. “My house state West Bengal’s inhabitants is greater than that of Germany. We have to belief somebody. Do not attempt to convey down the system like this. Do not cite such examples. European examples do not work right here,” he mentioned.

Justice Datta requested Mr Bhushan if there may be knowledge backing his competition that folks do not belief EVMs. When Mr Bhushan cited a survey, the court docket mentioned, “Allow us to not imagine in personal polls. Allow us to go by knowledge. The issue with knowledge is that it have to be genuine, not primarily based on opinion however precise efficiency. We’ll get the information from the Election Fee.”

When a counsel for the petitioners mentioned public sector firms are making EVMs, the court docket requested if he might be glad if the personal sector does it. The matter might be heard subsequent on Thursday.

What Is VVPAT and What Is The Case

The VVPAT — Voter Verified Paper Audit Path — allows a voter to see if the vote was forged correctly and went to the candidate he/she helps. The VVPAT generates a paper slip that’s stored in a sealed cowl and may be opened if there’s a dispute. Amid the Opposition’s questions and apprehensions relating to the EVM system of voting, the petitions name for cross-verification of each vote.

The petitions have been filed by the Affiliation for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and activist Arun Kumar Agarwal. Mr Agarwal has sought the counting of all VVPAT slips. The ADR’s petition seeks the court docket’s route to the Election Fee and the Centre to make sure that voters are in a position to confirm by way of VVPATs that their vote has been “counted as recorded”. The petition says that the requirement of voters verifying that their votes have been “recorded as forged” is considerably met when the VVPAT slip is displayed for about seven seconds after urgent the button on the EVM by way of a clear window.

“Nonetheless, there’s a full vacuum in legislation because the ECI has offered no process for the voter to confirm that her vote has been ‘counted as recorded’ which is an indispensable a part of voter verifiability. The failure of the ECI to offer for a similar is within the tooth of purport and object of the instructions issued by this Court docket in… Subramanian Swamy versus Election Fee of India (2013 verdict),” the plea mentioned.