Explainer | EVM-VVPAT Verification Issue Before Supreme Court

On mentioning of the pleas seeking extensive cross-verification of electronic voting machines (EVM) data against voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) records, the Supreme Court clarified on April 3 that the matter will be heard after 2 weeks.The Bench, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, initially said that the matter would come up next Tuesday or Wednesday. However, later, the likelihood of it being struck down from the list was highlighted, saying that under the present roster, it will probably go to the week after next week.For a detailed report on the exchange, click here.In this article, we will see what exactly is the EVM-VVPAT verification issue, how it came about and what the Supreme Court has been doing about it.The VVPAT SystemIn the VVPAT system, a paper slip bearing serial number, name and symbol of candidate is generated, along with recording of vote in the Control Unit, so that in case of any dispute, paper slip can be counted to verify the result being shown on the EVM. A printer is attached to the Balloting Unit and kept in the voting compartment. A voter, after pressing the button on Balloting Unit, can view the printed slip on VVPAT through the viewing window and, thus, verify that the vote is recorded for the candidate of his/her choice. The paper slip remains visible on VVPAT for seven seconds through a transparent window. Thereafter, it automatically gets cut and falls in sealed drop box of the VVPAT. By amending the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, the introduction of VVPATs was facilitated in 2013.Genesis of the disputeIn 2009, Dr Subramanian Swamy approached the Delhi High Court praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the ECI to incorporate a system of “paper trail/paper receipt” in the EVMs as a convincing proof that the EVMs rightly registered the vote cast by a voter in favor of a particular candidate.However, a Division Bench of the High Court disallowed his prayer in January 2012 and disposed of the petition. Against the High Court decision, Dr Swamy approached the Supreme Court.Around the same time, one Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking similar reliefs. His petition was tagged with Dr Swamy's and both the matters heard together.Essentially, Dr Swamy's case was that the system of EVMs prevalent at the time did not meet all international standards and though the ECI maintained that EVMs could not be tampered with, the same were open to hacking like any other electronic equipment. During the course of hearing, he highlighted that ECI had refused to incorporate a safeguard in the EVMs called “paper backup”, “paper receipt” or “paper trail” which would easily and cheaply meet the requirement of proof that the EVM rightly registered vote cast by a voter.ECI, on the other hand, urged that tampering apprehensions were baseless. Even so, it informed the Court that it was exploring the introduction of a viable VVPAT mechanism in EVMs to ensure transparency.After hearing the parties, the Court gave its judgment in 2013 (Case Title: Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India), holding 'paper trail' to be an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections, and directed the ECI to introduce the VVPAT mechanism. A relevant excerpt from the judgment is extracted below -"The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can be achieved only with the introduction of the “paper trail”. EVMs with VVPAT system ensure the accuracy of the voting system. With an intent to have fullest transparency in the system and to restore the confidence of the voters, it is necessary to set up EVMs with VVPAT system because vote is nothing but an act of expression which has immense importance in democratic system."Subsequently, the ECI framed and issued a Manual on Electronic Voting Machine and VVPAT, Guideline No.16.6 of which stipulated that only 1 randomly selected polling station in each Assembly Segment/Constituency shall undergo verification of VVPAT slips.Petition filed by 21 Opposition leaders in 2019 (N Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India)In 2019, pleas were filed before the Supreme Court by 21 opposition leaders, including former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu, seeking quashing of Guideline No.16.6 of the ECI's Manual. The petitioners in these cases further prayed for a direction to ECI to carry out minimum 50% randomized VVPAT paper slip verification of EVM "in every General and Bye Election in each Assembly Segment of a Parliamentary Constituency, in case of Election to the House of the People; and in each Assembly Constituency, in case of an election to a State Legislative Assembly."The ECI, in response, pleaded infrastructure difficulties, including manpower availability, at that point of time. It argued that sample verification of VVPAT paper trail of one EVM was done by a team of three officers under the direct supervision of the Returning Officer and the Election Observer of the constituency. The...

Explainer | EVM-VVPAT Verification Issue Before Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

Explainer | EVM-VVPAT Verification Issue Before Supreme Court

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers