Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Drawbacks of Ballot Voting in VVPAT and EVM Systems

The recent hearing on the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in India by the Supreme Court brought to light the concerns of several petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and activist Arun Kumar Agarwal, regarding the transparency and reliability of the EVM system in the country. The argument made by senior counsel Prashant Bhushan emphasized the potential flaws in the current voting system, citing concerns about the accuracy and trustworthiness of EVMs.

He proposed the possibility of reverting to paper ballots or introducing a system where Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips are given to voters for verification. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, one of the judges, expressed skepticism about the efficacy of EVMs, echoing the sentiments of the petitioners.

Justice Dipankar Datta also raised questions about the large voter population in India compared to other countries, highlighting the magnitude of the electoral process in the country. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde further reinforced the need for cross-verification of votes cast on EVMs with VVPAT slips, while Gopal Sankaranarayan stressed the importance of instilling confidence in the voters about the integrity of the electoral process.

The court also addressed the Election Commission’s role in ensuring the transparency and security of EVMs and highlighted the need for stricter punishments for tampering with the machines. There were also discussions about the lack of provisions for voters to physically verify their votes cast on EVMs and the need for authentic and reliable data from the Election Commission.

Overall, the proceedings of the hearing highlighted the concerns about the EVM system and the importance of ensuring the transparency, integrity, and trustworthiness of the electoral process in India. The court emphasized the need for a robust system that instills confidence in the voters and ensures the accurate recording and counting of votes cast.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing, and it remains to be seen how the concerns raised by the petitioners will be addressed in the ongoing discussions.