Key aspect
|
Petitioner’s demand
|
Supreme Court’s verdict
|
Full cross verification
|
- The petitioner argued that every voter should be able to verify that their vote has been counted properly after receiving confirmation that it has been cast.
- Currently, VVPAT slips are counted and matched with the EVM tally only in five randomly selected polling booths per constituency.
|
- The court rejected this, stating that while voters have the right to know their vote has been recorded accurately, it doesn't equate to the right of 100% counting of VVPAT slips.
- The court emphasized that other measures like the seven-second display of VVPAT slips and the ability to approach the Presiding Officer in case of mismatches as per Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 already protects voter’s right adequately.
|
Tampering with EVMs
|
- As per report by the Citizens’ Commission on Elections the petitioner argued there is a possibility of EVMs being tampered with or hacked.
- The commission is chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur.
|
- The court dismissed these concerns as unfounded, citing the unalterable nature of the microcontroller used in EVMs.
- The court directed additional measures to strengthen the integrity of the election process, such as checking the microcontroller for tampering upon request and sealing Symbol Loading Units (SLUs) along with EVMs for 45 days after results are declared.
|
EVM- VVPAT discrepancy
|
- The petitioner submitted that the ECI had acknowledged instances of variance in the results captured by the EVM and VVPAT.
- Example- 2019 elections in the Mydukur Assembly seat, Andhra Pradesh the EVM recorded 14 more votes than the VVPAT.
- This was later clarified by the Returning Officer as an oversight where a mock poll had not been cleared from the EVM.
|
- The court held that aside from one case in Mydukur there was not a single case of mismatch or defect in the recording of votes in any EVMs that are checked.
- This assertion was supported by data showing that even in 26 instances where voters reported mismatches, no actual discrepancies were found upon verification.
|
Giving VVPAT slip to voter
|
- The petitioners argue that the current system, which allows voters to view the VVPAT slip for only seven seconds, could be susceptible to manipulation.
- They suggest that the machine could be programmed to not cut the slip, preventing it from being counted, and propose that the slip should instead be handed to the voter to place in a ballot box.
|
- The court said that the purpose of the tinted glass above the VVPAT slip is to maintain the secrecy of the vote while still allowing the voter to verify their vote for seven seconds.
- The glass also serves to protect the slip from damage or tampering.
- The court reasoned that giving voters physical access to the VVPAT slips could lead to potential misuse, malpractices and disputes.
|
Return to paper ballot
|
- The petitioner suggested this move, referencing countries like Germany that have returned to paper ballots.
- They also proposed the idea of adding barcodes to VVPAT slips to facilitate the use of counting machines and minimize delays in vote counting.
|
- The court countered this suggestion by highlighting the benefits of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which include preventing booth capturing, eliminating invalid votes, offering administrative convenience, and reducing the use of paper.
- The court did not provide an opinion on the barcode suggestion, stating that it is a technical matter for the ECI to decide.
|