EVM-VVPAT : Is Micro Controller Installed In Control Unit? Supreme Court Seeks Clarifications From Election Commission

In pleas seeking 100% cross-checking of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) data against voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) records, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 24) posed certain queries to the Election Commission. The matter will be taken up again at 2 PM for an officer of the EC to explain the same.

The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was dealing with petitions filed by NGO-Association for Democratic Reforms and others. The hearing in the matter had concluded on April 18, when the verdict was reserved. Today, the matter was listed "for directions".

During the hearing, Justice Khanna said that the Bench had certain queries. These were listed thus:

(1) Is the micro-controller installed in the Control Unit or in the VVPAT? (We were under the impression that it is installed in the Control Unit, but in Frequently Asked Questions, it is indicated that it is installed in VVPAT, the Bench said)

(2) Is the micro-controller which is installed one-time programmable? (ECI stand is that it is, implying it cannot be modified)

(3) How many Symbol Loading Units are available?

(4) Limitation period for filing election petition is 30 days as such storage is 45 days. But as per Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, limitation period is 45 days. This needs to be clarified. "Accordingly, storage should be increased. If it's 45, it can be 60".

(5) On securing of EVMs, do both control unit and VVPAT bear seals?

Before the matter was passed over to be taken up at 2 PM, Senior Advocate Santhosh Paul (for one of the petitioners) could be heard raising the issue of EVM source codes, to which Justice Khanna replied, "Source code should not be disclosed, there will be misuse".

To recap, the petitioners had prayed that instead of the prevalent procedure, where the Election Commission cross-verifies EVM votes with VVPATs in only 5 randomly selected polling stations in each assembly constituency, all VVPATs be verified. Further, they had sought measures to ensure that a vote is 'recorded as cast' and 'counted as recorded'.

The ECI had opposed the pleas saying that it was another attempt to cast doubt over the functioning of EVMs and VVPATs on 'vague and baseless' grounds. In addition, it was argued that counting all VVPAT paper slips manually, as suggested, would not only be labor and time-intensive, but also be prone to 'human error' and 'mischief'. It was further the ECI's case that EVMs are non-tamperable and voters have no such fundamental right as claimed by the petitioners.

During the course of hearings, the court had expressed its reservations about petitioners being overly suspicious. It was further remarked that enhancing the scale of EVM data cross-checking against VVPAT records would increase the ECI's work without any 'big advantage'. In response to petitioners' suggestion to resort to ballot paper voting and/or manual counting of VVPAT slips, Justice Sanjiv Khanna had also said that human intervention will create problems.

On the date of reserving of orders, the bench extensively interacted with an official of the ECI to understand the working and security features of the EVMs. Notably, as AoR Prashant Bhushan cited a report published by Manorama Online about complaints of EVMs recording extra votes for the BJP during mock polls conducted in the Kasargod constituency in Kerala, the bench asked the ECI to check the issue. The ECI later refuted the newsreport as 'false' and undertook to file a detailed report.

For a detailed report on ADR's plea and submissions, click here. To understand the underlying controversy, ie the EVM-VVPAT issue, click here.

Case Title: Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2023 (and connected matters)