In a significant ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed multiple petitions seeking complete verification of votes cast on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) using the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) method. The bench, comprised of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, issued separate yet concurrent judgments on this matter.
Justice Dipankar Datta, delivering a nuanced perspective during the proceedings, emphasized the importance of balanced criticism while cautioning against blind skepticism towards the electoral system.
“Democracy thrives on harmony and trust among its institutions. By fostering a culture of collaboration and trust, we can amplify the voice of our democratic principles,” Justice Datta remarked, underscoring the court’s reliance on empirical evidence in its deliberations.
However, the court did not dismiss the issue entirely. Instead, it directed the Election Commission to implement specific measures aimed at bolstering transparency and confidence in the electoral process.
Among these directives, the court mandated the sealing of the Symbol Loading Unit in EVMs immediately after the loading of symbols, with the unit to be securely stored for a minimum of 45 days following elections.
Additionally, the court stipulated that the burnt memory within the EVM microcontroller should undergo scrutiny by a team of engineers post-results declaration, upon request by specific candidates.
Furthermore, the court recommended exploring the feasibility of utilizing a machine for counting VVPAT slips, potentially streamlining the verification process. Notably, candidates seeking VVPAT cross-verification will be required to pay for them; however, refunds will be issued in the event of tampering discovered in the EVM in question.
The apex court’s position reiterated that it is not the authoritative body overseeing elections, emphasizing that it cannot dictate the operational facets of the Election Commission, which holds constitutional authority over such matters. Responding to advocate Prashant Bhushan’s concerns on behalf of the Association for Democratic Reforms, the court maintained that it could not alter the petitioner’s predisposed perspectives on the matter.
During previous hearings, petitioners had voiced concerns about public trust, citing European countries’ return to ballot voting systems. However, the court distinguished these circumstances, asserting that the challenges faced in India are distinct. The Election Commission defended the existing system, highlighting the integration of EVMs with VVPAT machines to ensure voter confidence and verification of votes .
Read all the World News, Business News, Sports News, Entertainment News, Business News and Opinion here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
