The Supreme Court, in today’s session, reiterated its stance that it does not hold dominion over election matters and cannot mandate the operations of the Election Commission, which is a constitutional body. This statement emerged during the hearing on petitions advocating for thorough cross-verification of votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) using paper slips produced by the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system. The court has postponed its judgment on the matter.
During the proceedings led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, doubts were raised regarding the court’s authority to act solely on suspicion. Responding to Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s concerns, representing the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, the court emphasized its role, stating, “If you already have a predetermined notion, then our intervention won’t change that… our objective isn’t to alter your mindset.”
Amidst apprehensions expressed by the Opposition regarding the reliability of the EVM voting system, the petitions aim to mandate the cross-verification of all votes cast on EVMs with VVPAT-generated paper slips. Currently, this verification process is conducted for five randomly selected EVMs in each Assembly constituency.
In previous hearings, petitioners highlighted concerns regarding public trust and cited examples of European countries reverting to traditional ballot voting systems. However, the court dismissed these comparisons, noting the distinct challenges faced in India’s context. The Election Commission reiterated that the existing system is robust.
Also read: Supreme Court Asserts, “We Can’t Control Polls,” Tells Prashant Bhushan in VVPAT Case
Explaining the components of an EVM and the VVPAT system, the court sought clarification from the Election Commission regarding the microcontrollers in the system and their re-programmability. The Election Commission clarified that all units possess microcontrollers that can only be programmed once. However, Mr Bhushan argued that these microcontrollers have re-programmable flash memory, disputing the Election Commission’s assertion.
The court expressed reliance on the technical report provided by the Election Commission, highlighting the Commission’s assurance that the quantum of flash memory is limited and incapable of storing software. Justice Khanna emphasized that the microcontrollers in the control unit are impartial and do not recognize party affiliations or symbols; they only register button inputs.
When Mr. Bhushan raised concerns about the possibility of loading a malicious program into the flash memory, the court reiterated its stance, stating, “Can we mandate action based solely on suspicion? We are not authorized to oversee another constitutional body; hence, we cannot regulate electoral processes.”
