We Know What Happened...": Supreme Court Flags Ballot Voting Drawbacks
Supreme Court hears petitions on EVM-VVPAT verification, highlighting concerns with the secret ballot method, voter confidence, and tampering risks.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while hearing petitions seeking cross-verification of votes cast on Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) with paper slips generated through the VVPAT system, pointed to issues with the secret ballot voting method. Justice Sanjiv Khanna noted, "We are in our 60s. We all know what happened when there were ballot papers, you may have, but we have not forgotten," addressing Prashant Bhushan, counsel for one of the petitioners, Association for Democratic Reforms. Bhushan argued that most European countries that had adopted voting through EVMs have reverted to paper ballots. "We can go back to paper ballots. Another option is to give the VVPAT slip to the voters in hand. Otherwise, the slips fall into the machine and the slip can be then given to the voter and it can be put into the ballot box. Then the VVPAT design was changed, it had to be transparent glass, but it was changed to dark opaque mirror glass where it is only visible when the light is on for second seconds," he said.
When Bhushan cited Germany's example, Justice Dipankar Datta asked about Germany's population. Bhushan replied that it is around 6 crore, while India has 50-60 crore voters. "Ninety-seven crore is the total number of registered voters. We all know what happened when there were ballot papers," Justice Khanna added. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, counsel for one of the petitioners, argued that votes cast on EVMs should be tallied with VVPAT slips. Justice Khanna responded, "Yes, 60 crore VVPAT slips should be counted. Right?" The judge highlighted that human interventions "lead to problems and human weakness can be there, which includes biases as well".
He acknowledged that machines without human intervention would give accurate results, but problems arise when there is human intervention or unauthorized changes. Bhushan then presented a research paper on the possibility of EVMs being tampered with. He criticized the practice of counting only 5 VVPAT machines per assembly when there are 200 such machines, calling it insufficient. He also raised concerns about the seven-second light, which he argued could lead to manipulation. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, appearing for one of the petitioners, emphasized the importance of voter confidence in the voting process.
The court asked the Election Commission of India about the process of voting, the storage of EVMs, and the counting of votes. Justice Khanna noted the lack of strict punishment for tampering with EVMs, emphasizing the need for a fear of punishment. Justice Dipankar Datta cautioned against comparing the Indian election with voting in foreign countries, emphasizing the need to trust the system and not undermine it with such comparisons. He highlighted the differences in population between his home state West Bengal and Germany, suggesting that European examples might not be applicable in the Indian context. The petitions seek cross-verification of votes cast on EVMs with paper slips generated through the VVPAT system. The VVPAT allows voters to verify if their vote was cast correctly and went to the candidate they support. The VVPAT generates a paper slip that is kept in a sealed cover and can be opened in case of a dispute. The petitioners call for the counting of all VVPAT slips to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the voting process.
| Follow the Hindeez on Google News |  |
| Follow the Hindeez channel on WhatsApp |  |
We hate spam as much as you do
© Hindeez 2024, All Rights Reserved
