The Election Commission of India (ECI) has firmly defended the integrity of electronic voting machines (EVMs), emphasizing their non-tamperable nature. In a detailed affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the ECI stated,
“The electronic voting machines are non-tamperable, both due to technological measures, and also due to strict administrative and security procedures laid out by ECI, whereby no access to EVM/VVPAT is allowed to any unauthorized person.”
This robust defense comes in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the non-governmental organization, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The PIL seeks complete verification of EVM data against voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) records. The ECI has described this plea as an attempt to cast aspersions on the functioning of EVMs and VVPATs based on
“vague and baseless”
grounds.
The Commission’s affidavit further elaborates on the impracticality of the ADR’s suggestion, stating,
“Manual counting of this scale will also be prone to human error and mischief, leaving aside the drudgery of days of counting small slips of paper potent with possibilities of mischievous false narratives on social media…The petition is essentially suggesting going back to the paper ballot system.”
The ADR’s plea also calls for the recognition of every voter’s fundamental right to ensure their vote is
“recorded as cast” and “counted as recorded”.
The ECI has categorically refuted this claim, asserting that no such fundamental right exists.
Furthermore, the ECI has challenged the ADR’s reliance on the 2013 judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India. The Commission clarified,
“The petitioner has incorrectly relied on the ratio of Subramaniam Swamy, which is not applicable in the present case…Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail or VVPAT is essentially introduced for the purpose of the voter to verify the vote cast in the form of a VVPAT slip at the time of voting in the polling station, and not with the objective of cross-verification or counting of slips at a later stage.”
Highlighting the robustness of the current system, the ECI mentioned that in 2019, following a Supreme Court ruling, the number of random polling stations for VVPAT verification was increased from 1 to 5 per assembly constituency. The Commission cited the Indian Statistical Institute’s (ISI) findings, which recommended that the current practice exceeds the statistically recommended figure, ensuring a confidence level much higher than 4 sigma.
The ECI’s affidavit also revealed that 38,156 randomly selected VVPATs have been tallied with their respective EVMs, with no discrepancies found. Any differences in count were attributed to non-deletion of mock poll votes or non-removal of mock poll slips. The Commission concluded,
“VVPAT is essentially an ‘audit trail’ for the voter…to press forward a ground for 100 percent verification of VVPAT slips is a regressive thought and tantamount only to going back indirectly to the days of manual voting using the ballot system.”
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is overseeing the case, has previously expressed reservations about the ADR’s plea, questioning its overly suspicious nature. The court has adjourned the matter until November, reiterating its concerns over the ADR’s stance.
It’s worth noting that the ADR, along with another non-profit, Common Cause, had approached the Supreme Court in 2019, alleging discrepancies in the 17th Lok Sabha elections. While the 2019 petition sought a tally of the EVM count against the register record, the recent plea demands verification of EVM data against VVPAT records.
Case Details: Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2023.
