Trust in machines
It is reassuring that the Supreme Court found nothing to impair faith in EVMs
The Supreme Court of India’s rejection of the demand for 100% verication of the paper trail left by the votes cast through electronic voting machines comes as no surprise, as there is no hard evidence that the current verication system suers from any irremediable lacuna. The two concurring judgments of the Bench reiterate the faith the judiciary has so far reposed in the integrity of the electoral process, especially after the introduction of the voter veriable paper audit trail, or VVPAT. In the process, the Bench also rejected the idea of reverting to paper ballots, as such a measure would indeed be regressive and negate the gains from the elimination of vulnerabilities associated with paper ballots. This is not the rst time that the Court has declined to interfere with the system in place; it had earlier refused to order 50% verication of the paper trail in one case and 100% verication in another. The Court has utilised this petition to review the administrative and technical safeguards in the system and found nothing to impair its faith in it. The two directions given by the Court address the other serious apprehensions: that the symbol loading units be secured and kept in safe custody for 45 days after declaration of results and that the top two losing candidates could seek a verication of the micro-controllers in 5% of the EVMs in specied polling booths so that tampering, if any, may be detected.
In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court held that “a paper trail is an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections”. In another case, it favoured the increase in the number of polling stations in which VVPAT verication would be done from one per Assembly constituency or segment to ve. The introduction of a paper audit trail itself was in response to apprehensions that voters had no way of ascertaining if their votes were recorded correctly. It is somewhat ironical that the verication system put in place to address such fears itself has become a bone of contention as to the extent to which the paper trail has to be veried. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in his opinion, has recorded suggestions that VVPAT slips may be counted through machines, and that symbols loaded in the VVPAT units may be barcoded for easy counting in future. It ought to be clear that such technological advancement alone can make the process suspicion-proof. A larger point to be made is that the apprehensions and suspicions of possible manipulation indicate a level of mistrust in the Election Commission of India not seen in the past. Voter condence in the system of voting and counting is one thing, but the need for the election watchdog to be seen as impartial is quite another.