The Election Commission of India has assuaged those concerns constantly, including by holding hackathons. In 2012, the Court introduced the VVPAT system to ensure a paper trail to test machines.
Asked and answered. That, in essence, is the message of the Supreme Court verdict in Association of Democratic Reforms vs Election Comission of India and Anr. The pleas by the petitioner — a return to paper ballots; printed paper ballots to each voter, placed in a ballot box and counted in full, and/or counting of every vote through a VVPAT slip — all demanded 100 per cent verification of votes.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta were unequivocal in their rejection of all three pleas in their separate but concurring judgments. The verdict also stated that “while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial in evaluating systems or institutions, blindly distrusting any aspect of the system can breed unwarranted scepticism and impede progress”. It is correct. But the Court has gone beyond merely rejecting the petitioner’s pleas and put in place interventions that should put to rest any lingering doubts about India’s voting system.
The Court has issued two directions. First, the Symbol Uploading Units (SULs) are to be kept in a strong room for 45 days after the results are declared. Like EVMs, they too can be examined and scrutinised. Second, any candidate in the second or third position can request that EVMs in the constituency are checked. In case of such a request, 5 per cent of machines per assembly segment will be examined. The first measure is a check that illustrates that votes have not been miscounted and the second gives candidates who have concerns a recourse to alleviate their doubts.
Justice Datta is right, of course, when he says in his judgment that the question of returning to ballot papers “does not and cannot arise”. That would amount to turning the clock back on a system that has no significant blemishes and, in fact, has been widely lauded across the world. However, his allusion that the petitioner’s intentions may be malafide or an attempt to “undermine… the accomplishments of the nation” is unneeded and avoidable.
The petitioner has a solid record of tracking the electoral process — it played a key role in the electoral bonds case — and asking questions is never antithetical to a country’s progress. Indeed, the case has offered the Court an opportunity to affirm that India’s voting process is credible and that the EVM bogey is just that. In fact, since electronic voting was introduced in 2004, the machines have been questioned by political parties across the spectrum (especially when they lose) as well as individuals and civil society actors.
The Election Commission of India has assuaged those concerns constantly, including by holding hackathons. In 2012, the Court introduced the VVPAT system to ensure a paper trail to test machines. Now, it has once again given its imprimatur to the sanctity of India’s polling system and brought in more measures for verification. Trust in the election system is essential to democracy. Friday’s ruling, coming after an enriching and insightful exchange of arguments in the court, reinforces that trust.
