VVPAT JUDGMENT
on enabling voters to confirm that their votes are counted as they were cast. The petitions also sought that voters be permitted to physically deposit their VVPAT slips in ballot boxes. Alternatively, it argued that India should return to the ballot paper system like some foreign nations.
The batch of petitions generated political heat and public interest over ensuring the integrity of electronic voting via VVPATs. This system provides a paper slip confirmation, viewed by the voter through a transparent window, which goes into a sealed cover that is available for verification in case of disputes. Currently, the verification process involves checking VVPAT slips from five randomly selected EVMs in each assembly segment.
Leading the bench, justice Khanna noted that “data and figures do not indicate artifice and deceit”, stressing that “unfounded” challenges revealing perceptions and predispositions cannot cast aspersions on a system vital to India’s democratic process.
“To us, it is apparent that a number of safeguards and protocols with stringent checks have been put in place. Data and figures do not indicate artifice and deceit...Imagination and suppositions should not lead us to hypothesise a wrong doing without any basis or facts. The credibility of the ECI and integrity of the electoral process earned over years cannot be chaffed and over-ridden by baroque contemplations and speculations,” said justice Khanna.
Acknowledging voters’ right to question the EVMs’ functioning, the judge urged caution against unfounded challenges, which could erode trust in the electoral process. “Repeated and persistent doubts and despair, even without supporting evidence, can have the contrarian impact of creating distrust. This can reduce citizen participation and confidence in elections, essential for a healthy and robust democracy,” said justice Khanna.
The judge rejected calls to return to the ballot paper system, citing the flaws and logistical challenges it presents. He emphasised EVMs’ advantages, including curbing booth capturing, reducing invalid votes, and expediting the counting process. “In the Indian context, keeping in view the vast size of the Indian electorate of nearly 97 crore, the number of candidates who contest the elections, the number of polling booths where voting is held, and the problems faced with ballot papers, we would be undoing the electoral reforms by directing reintroduction of the ballot papers,” said justice Khanna.
While giving physical access to VVPAT slips to voters will lead to misuse, malpractices and disfocussed putes, justice Khanna added, increasing the cross-verification of EVM-VVPAT will not only cause delays in the process human errors in counting but also that the data and results do not indicate any need to do so.
The judge added that the petitioners’ suggestions regarding barcoding of the symbols loaded in the VVPATs and use of counting machines for VVPATs may be examined by the ECI, clarifying the court refrains from making any comment on these issues.