Supreme Court on Friday rejected a batch of pleas seeking 100 per cent tally of votes cast on EVMs, votes by paper ballots and physically dropping VVPAT paper slips in ballot boxes. The top court’s verdict comes on the day 88 constituencies across 13 states go to polls in phase 2 of the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
This means, the current system where VVPAT verification is done at five random polling stations in each constituency selected by a Returning Officer by drawing lots, is in force. If there is any dispute, the vote recorded on VVPAT slip will take precedence.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta penned separate but concurring judgements. “While a balanced perspective is important, blindly distrusting a system can breed scepticism,” Justice Datta observed. Meaningful criticism is needed, be it the judiciary or the legislature, he said, adding that “Democracy is all about maintaining harmony and trust among all the pillars.”
“By nurturing a culture of trust and collaboration, we can strengthen the voice of our democracy,” Justice Datta said in his opinion.
Justice Khanna issued two directions where authorities have been mandated to secure the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) in strongrooms once they complete loading poll symbols on or before May 1. The SLUs and the EVMs will be sealed, secured and stored for 45 days after the results are declared on June 4.
Secondly, the Supreme Court said on a losing candidate’s request, a team of engineers from the EVM manufacturing company will check and verify the burnt memory semi-controller in 5 per cent of the EVMs (Control Unit, Ballot Unit and the VVPAT), per assembly segment of the Parliamentary constituency. Such candidates or their representatives shall identify the EVMs by the polling station or the serial number and bear the costs/expenses of the exercise. However, this money will be refunded if the manufacturers find that the EVMs have been tampered with.
The top court further suggested the Election Commission of India should introduce electronic machines to count the paper slips and incorporate bar codes with symbols allotted to political parties.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked the poll panel to explain the entire process of how VVPATs are calibrated, what kind of officers are involved and what safeguards are in place to prevent tampering. “This is an electoral process and there needs to be sanctity to it. Let there be no doubt about it,” Justice Datta had said.
Supreme Court’s judgment came on pleas filed by the Association of Democratic Reforms, Abhay Bhakchand Chhajed, Arun Kumar Agrawal and other intervenors.
SC has tried to strike a balance: petitioner
Arun Kumar Agrawal, one of the petitioners seeking a 100 per cent tally, was “totally pessimistic” about the results. Last week, he had even “conceded defeat”. “I have witnessed enough court proceedings to know how it is going to go,” he had told BOOM.
“I thought we would not get any relief. But I believe the Supreme Court has tried to strike a balance with the checks it has placed. Allowing a losing candidate to challenge the results and check the EVM for manipulation is a welcome move,” Agrawal said. “Given the constraints, my doubts are not completely allayed, but I will take all the wins,” he added. These checks are the redeeming features of the judgment, Agrawal said.
Agrawal, a retired banker said the top court’s “intentions are not wrong”. At the end of the day, he said we have to be objective.
The Supreme Court on April 24 had said, “We cannot control elections. How can we control the functioning of another constitutional authority like the Election Commission of India? We cannot issue directions on suspicions alone,” the top court said when advocate Prashant Bhushan expressed doubts about EVM manipulation.
Last week, the bench had said that one can't be suspicious and critical about everything after Bhushan pointed out flaws in the EVMs.