The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding whether there are any penalties or punishments specified for individuals involved in tampering with or manipulating Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs)
NEW DELHI: Today (16th April): The Supreme Court of India asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) about the existence of any legal provisions that prescribe penalties for officials and authorities involved in manipulating Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs)
However, the court also reiterated the need to maintain trust in the system and cautioned against undermining the credibility of the electoral process. The court was addressing a batch of petitions that sought a comprehensive count of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in elections.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta expressed its concern over the absence of specific provisions to address manipulation of EVMs.
“Unless there is fear of stringent punishment, there is always the possibility of manipulation.”
They highlighted concerns about manipulation and the need for consequences, saying,
“There should be a fear that if something wrong is done, then there will be punishment.”
Regarding the lack of specific provisions for manipulation, Justice Khanna clarified,
“We are not on the procedure. There is no specific provision with regard to manipulation done, if at all.”
While acknowledging the importance of trust in the system, Justice Datta urged against undermining it, saying,
“My home state West Bengal, has more population than Germany. We need to repose some trust and faith in somebody. Do not try to bring down the system like this.”
READ ALSO: DMK Filed Writ Petitions Over EVM Issues Before Lok Sabha Polls: Madras HC
The petitioners argued that all VVPAT slips should be tallied with the corresponding EVM votes, rather than the current practice of tallying only five EVMs. The court expressed concerns about the introduction of human intervention in the polling and counting process, as it could lead to further complications and potential biases. The court suggested exploring the possibility of post-voting inspection of EVMs by an independent technical team to prevent any foul play. Additionally, the court sought information from the ECI about the installation of CCTV cameras at polling booths.
The court rejected a plea to revert to using ballot papers instead of EVMs, citing past issues associated with the older system. The petitioners presented arguments favoring the use of VVPAT slips to ensure the accuracy of the votes cast through EVMs. They suggested either returning to paper ballots or counting and tallying all VVPAT slips with the EVM votes. The court, however, questioned the practicality of these suggestions, highlighting the significant time required to count all VVPAT slips.
The Bench expressed concerns about human intervention in the polling and counting process, noting that it could lead to problems and biases.
They stated,
“Normally human interventions lead to problems and human weakness can be there which includes biases as well. Machine normally without human intervention will give you accurate results.”
The Court rejected the plea to revert to ballot papers instead of EVMs, remarking,
“We all know what happened when there were ballot papers. You may have but we have not forgotten. Anyways we heard the three solutions. We do not want a debate on this now.”
Regarding ensuring the integrity of the EVMs, the Court proposed the idea of having an independent technical team inspect the machines after voting is completed.
They asked,
“Whether we can after the voting is done, the machines can be kept for technical team inspection so that there is no foul play. We want to know if the three units are there and if the three units can be kept together.”
The issue of tallying VVPAT slips with EVMs has been a subject of contention in the past. Prior to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, leaders of several opposition parties approached the Supreme Court, seeking verification of at least 50% of all EVMs through VVPAT.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, proposed alternatives to the current electoral process, suggesting,
“We can go back to paper ballots. Another option is to give VVPAT slip to the voters in hand.” He highlighted concerns about the design of VVPAT slips, noting, “The VVPAT design was changed. It had to be a transparent glass but it was changed to dark opaque mirror glass where it is only visible when the light is on for 7 seconds.”
Bhushan also mentioned that programmable chips are used in EVMs, stating,
“These are programmable chips. Most European countries have gone back from EVMs to paper ballot.”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, supporting one of the petitioners, suggested that votes on EVMs should be tallied with VVPAT slips. However, the bench questioned the practicality of this suggestion, considering the time it would take to count all the VVPAT slips.
Bhushan criticized the current practice of tallying only a small percentage of VVPAT machines, stating,
“They are only counting 5 VVPAT machines per assembly when there are 200 such machines. This is 5 percent only and there can be no justification in this.”
Overall, Bhushan and Hegde emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in the electoral process, especially concerning the use of EVMs and VVPAT slips.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan referred to a BloombergQuint report highlighting discrepancies between EVMs and VVPAT slips in 373 constituencies.
He explained,
“What we are saying is that the paper slip falls from the box, and we collect that paper slip to see what we have voted for. From the 2019 elections, BloombergQuint analyzed the data on the EC’s website and found discrepancies in 373 constituencies.”
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi emphasized the importance of ensuring confidence in the electoral process, stating,
“As a voter with a stake in the democratic process, any residual doubt, if it can be assuaged in a reasonably practical way, must be adopted.” He argued for tallying VVPAT with EVM votes to enhance transparency, noting that this would “add to the prestige of the ECI.”
Both advocates stressed the need for transparency and trustworthiness in the electoral system, highlighting concerns about discrepancies and the importance of addressing them to maintain public faith in democratic processes.
The Election Commission used to tally only one random EVM per assembly segment with VVPAT. However, in April 2019, the Supreme Court increased this number to five but dismissed the plea seeking verification of all EVMs through VVPAT. In this recent case, the court continued to hear arguments on April 18.
