Supreme Court identifies drawbacks with VVPAT, EVM, and ballot voting in recent ruling

The recent debate regarding the reliability of electronic voting machines (EVMs) in India has brought to light various concerns and suggestions for potential improvements. The discussion primarily revolved around the introduction of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips and the need for cross-verification of every vote. During the proceedings, arguments were presented by different counsel representing the petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and activist Arun Kumar Agarwal. Their plea focused on the necessity for a comprehensive verification process that ensures each voter can confirm that their vote has been “counted as recorded.”

The counsel also highlighted a void in the law, which fails to address this vital aspect of voter verifiability. The concerned judges, namely Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, engaged in a detailed discussion with the counsels, such as Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Hegde, regarding the effectiveness of the current EVM system and the potential vulnerabilities to tampering. They also questioned the practicality of counting a large volume of VVPAT slips, which was estimated to be around 60 crore in the context of India’s vast voting population. The petitioners’ counsel emphasized the importance of building confidence among voters and raised critical points about the process of voting, storage of EVMs, and the counting of votes.

They also called for strict punishment for tampering with EVMs to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. The court expressed concerns about the limited provision for strict punishment for tampering with EVMs and questioned the feasibility of addressing objections raised by a significant portion of voters. Additionally, the judges sought assurance from the Election Commission of India regarding the authenticity and accuracy of the electoral data. The matter will be heard further, and the court intends to gather authentic data from the Election Commission to make informed decisions and address the issues raised by the petitioners.

The judges also made it clear that the intent is to improve the electoral system and build trust, emphasizing the need for factual and performance-based data rather than just opinions.