A lost opportunity to assure voters

The Supreme Court’s verdict in the EVM (Electronic Voting Machine) case rejecting, among others, the demand for counting of all VVPAT (voter-verifiable paper audit trail) slips was not unexpected. The court has in the past accepted the system of voting through the EVMs and rejected demands for 100% or even 50% verification of voter trail. It had supported the increase in the number of polling stations, picked randomly, in which VVPAT verification was to be done from one per Assembly constituency to five, though. The VVPAT slip facility was introduced in 2013 to dispel doubts about the functioning of the EVMs. The court has now reaffirmed its earlier judgements and again put its stamp of approval on the system. 

The court has proposed two measures which it considers will enhance the security of the EVM system. One is to ensure that the symbol uploading units are kept in a strong-room for 45 days after the results are declared. This is intended to be a check to ensure that votes are not miscounted. The second measure is the option given to second and third candidates in the losing position to seek inspection of 5% of the EVMs per Assembly segment in each parliamentary constituency within seven days of the declaration of the result. The court considers that these measures, along with existing provisions, will ensure the working of a trustworthy voting system. 

But the judgement is unlikely to set at rest all apprehensions about the working of the EVMs and put an end to the debate over it. Those who have reservations about the EVMs have described the judgement as a disappointment. Major parties, including the Congress, have said they will continue to campaign for greater use of the VVPAT. The court has said that tallying all VVPAT slips with EVM votes is cumbersome and could delay the poll result. That would not be counted as the best argument against it. The petitioners included organisations of high credibility like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The court hinted that the petitioners’ intentions may be mala fide or may be intended to “undermine…the accomplishments of the nation”. This is an unfortunate comment. As long as there are doubts about the system, the matter cannot be considered as closed. The history of EVM use in the country is one of evolving safeguards and more steps for protection and trust. Yet more of them cannot be ruled out. The system should be completely credible and fool-proof in a democratic set-up, and should be seen to be so. The judgement will be seen as a lost opportunity to ensure that the voters were assured of the best of both worlds – electronic voting and complete paper count -- so that there would be no doubt or room for suspicion in anyone’s mind.