SC says it cannot suspect everything, reserving judgment on the EVM-VVPAT tallying

The Supreme Court (SC) postponed its decision on Thursday, telling petitioners requesting 100% cross-verification of votes cast by electronic voting machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) that “everything can’t be suspected.”

“You’re gone too far now. Not everything is susceptible. It’s impossible to criticize everything.Please let them know if they did anything well. Judges Khanna and Dipankar Datta’s bench informed petitioner Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) representative Prashant Bhushan, “We heard you because we are also concerned.”

Voters may check whether their votes were cast accurately by using the independent vote verification technology known as VVPAT. The voter may examine the paper slip that is generated. It is stored under an airtight cover that may be opened in the event of a disagreement.

Rather than using VVPAT paper slips to verify five randomly chosen EVMs per assembly segment, as is now done, the petitioners, including ADR, have asked for a 100% count of VVPAT slips. They have been looking for ways to make sure that votes are “counted as recorded” and “recorded as cast.” They have also asked for the EC’s 2017 decision to swap out the clear glass on VVPAT devices with an opaque glass that allows voters to see the slip only during the seven-second light period.

The easiest thing for the poll panel to do, according to Bhushan on Thursday, was to allow the light on the VVPAT screen to remain lit throughout the voting period rather than the seven seconds permitted under the current system, so that the voter could see the slip cutting and falling. This was because the first phase of polling for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections was just one day away.

Bhushan said that at a sample election in Kasaragod, Kerala, an EVM displayed an additional vote, citing various media sources.

The EC, however, called the aforementioned claims “false.” “These news articles are untrue. We have investigated the district collector’s claim, and it seems to be untrue. Nitesh Kumar Vyas, senior Deputy Election Commissioner, said the Bench, “We will submit a detailed report to the court.”

Senior attorney Manindar Singh supported the Election Commission’s method for holding elections using electronic voting machines. More than four crore VVPAT slips have been checked with EVM votes, according to the EC, and no discrepancy has been discovered so far.

The EC’s assertion was refuted by senior counsel Sankaranarayanan, who said, “Their own paperwork demonstrates that there is a disparity… There is a minimum of one mismatch. Let’s not claim that there isn’t a mismatch.