EVM-VVPAT case highlights: 'Not rehearing merits', says SC as it reserves judgement

SC to issue directions today on pleas for cross-verification of votes cast through EVMs with VVPAT

The Supreme Court is scheduled to issue directions in a matter related to pleas for raising VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) counts to 100 per cent with votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during the elections on Wednesday. The order will be passed at 10:30 am.

Read more

What is VVPAT

Voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) or verified paper record (VPR) is a method of providing feedback to voters using a ballotless voting system. A VVPAT is intended as an independent verification system for voting machines designed to allow voters to verify that their vote was cast correctly, to detect possible election fraud or malfunction, and to provide a means to audit the stored electronic results.

What happens when EVMs and VVPATs don't match?

Should there be a disparity between the data on VVPATs and EVMs, the polling station's specific paper slips are re-examined. The count determined by the VVPAT paper slips takes precedence over the vote count recorded on the EVMs if the disparity continues.

Read more

Bench has heard the matter

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipnkar Datta heard the matter.

Bench assembles to issue order

Bench has assembles to pass order on pleas seeking complete verification of EVM-VVPAT.

"The matter is listed for directions, we had some queries", Justice Khanna said.

Queries of the bench

The bench expressed the four following queries regarding VVPAT:

1. Clarification about micro controller installation in controlling unit or in the VVPAT.

2. Confirmation that microcontroller installed is one time programmable.

3. How many Symbol Loading Units are available.

4. Limitation for election petition is 30 days and hence the data was stored for 45 days. But as per RP Act, the limitation period is 45 days. So the period for storage may have to be correspondingly increased.

It further demanded clarification on whether the Control Unit only is sealed or the VVPAT is kept separately.

Officer from EC asked to be present at 2 pm to respond to queries

After expressing their queries, the bench asked an officer from the Election Commission to be present in the court at 2 pm to respond.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh for ECI assured that the officer will be present.

Bench to hear matter at 2 pm

Bench re-assembles

Bench re-assembles to clarify queries and pass order. EC official also present.

Microcontrollers cannot be accessed physically, says EC official

Responding to the apex court's query regarding microcontrollers, EC official said that these cannot be accessed physically and a one-time program is burnt into them.

"All the microcontrollers are one time programmable. They are burnt at the time of manufacturing. They cannot be changed", the official said.

All machines stored for 45 days, says EC official

"All the machines are stored for 45 days. On the 46th day, CEO writes to Registrars of concerned HCs to ascertain if any election petition filed. If any Election Petition is filed, the machines remain stored", the official said.

All three, BU, CU and VVPAT are sealed after polling, says EC official

Manufacturer in RTI reply admitted that chip is used, says Prashant Bhushan arguing for petitioners

Bhushan said that the 'one-time programmable' nature of chip is doubtful since the manufacturer has himself admitted in an RTI that the chip is used.

"Manufacturer is one AnnexP company. We downloaded the characteristics of microcontroller from the manufacturer website", he argued.

That the processor chip in EVM is one-time programmable is in doubt. The manufacturer in RTI reply has admitted that this chip is used.

Prashant Bhushan arguing for petitioners

To say that his microcontroller is not reprogrammable is not correct, argues Prashant Bhushan

Bhushan argued that microcontroller has a flash memory and saying that it is not reprogrammable is 'not correct'.

"This is what computer experts also say", he said.

Have to rely on EC for technical data, says Justice Khanna

On Bhushan's argument that flash memory in microcontrollers in reprogrammable, Justice Khanna said that the court will 'have to rely on EC for technical data'.

" They admit that signal flows from the Ballot Unit to the VVPAT and from VVPAT to the control unit. If in the VVPAT flash memory, there is a malicious program...", Bhushan said.

"They say flash memory is not loaded with any program but with symbols only", Justice Khanna replied.

'We cannot control election, another constitutional authority', says SC

On Prashant Bhushan's apprehension about 'malicious program' being carried, the Justice Datta said that 'till date there has been no such incident' and that the court cannot control elections and another constitutional authority.

We cannot control the election, we cannot control another constitutional authority.

Justice Datta

Petitioners themselves not sure, their report says 'doubtful', says SC

"Consequences are provided if somebody does something wrong. Also, the report cited (by petitioners) says "doubtful". They themselves are not sure", Justice Khanna said.

He further added that court intervened twice, once to make VVPAT mandatory and secondly to increase it from 1 to 5.

This is not a rehearing but a clarification of court's queries, says SC

Justice Khanna asserted that 'this is not a rehearing' and the court only wanted to clarify some doubts.

"After going through the FAQs, we had some queries, my brother had some queries, so we just put them across", he said.

Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde makes a suggestion of a unique bar code for each candidate

Hegde made a suggestion of incorporating bar code for each candidtae and said that it would help the process greatly.

However, he was countered by Justice Khanna who asked, " How can it help the process? If there is any automatic counter to count the bar code..."

"We are not asking for a return to paper ballot. We are only asking for a paper confirmation", Hegde responded,

SC reserves judgement, says 'not rehearing merits'

Justice Khanna said that court was not 'rehearing merits' and just wanted some clarifications.

"The matter was listed for directions in view of certain queries. Answers have been given. Judgment reserved", the bench said.

The matter was listed for directions in view of certain queries. Answers have been given. Judgment reserved.

Supreme Court bench.