Supreme Court Upholds EVM Integrity: Dismisses Plea for 100% VVPAT Counting

The Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed the integrity and reliability of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the Indian electoral process. In the landmark judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India, the Court dismissed petitions demanding a return to paper ballots and 100% verification of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips.

Background of the Case

The case was initiated by the Association for Democratic Reforms and other petitioners, raising concerns over the possibility of tampering with EVMs. Their primary demands included:

• A complete return to the paper ballot system in elections.
• That VVPAT slips should be given to voters to physically deposit in the ballot box for cross-verification.
• 100% counting of VVPAT slips alongside electronic counting.
• Concerns over modifications made to the VVPAT glass window in 2017, alleging reduced transparency.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) strongly opposed these petitions, asserting that EVMs are tamper-proof and have successfully conducted elections since their introduction.

Arguments by the Petitioners

• The petitioners argued that voter confidence in EVMs was declining due to potential vulnerabilities in electronic counting.
• They cited international practices where electronic voting had been discontinued.
• They contended that the modifications to VVPAT, particularly the introduction of a tinted glass window, compromised transparency.
• They challenged Rule 49MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which penalizes voters for false complaints of mismatched votes, claiming it deterred genuine grievances.

Arguments by the Election Commission

• The ECI countered that EVMs have consistently ensured free and fair elections since their adoption.
• They emphasized that India’s electoral process has multiple security layers, including mock polls, randomization of machines, and real-time verification.
• They highlighted that not a single instance of EVM tampering had been proven.
• The VVPAT window was made translucent to prevent external tampering while still allowing voters to verify their votes.
• The demand for 100% VVPAT verification was impractical as manual counting introduces human errors.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court noted that repeated challenges to EVMs have been dismissed in past cases due to lack of evidence.
• It referenced the 2013 case of Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India, which led to the introduction of VVPATs for additional transparency.
• It reaffirmed the 2019 ruling in N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India, which increased VVPAT verification from one to five polling stations per constituency.
• The Court emphasized that the electoral process must not be disrupted based on mere speculation.
• It found no merit in claims that the VVPAT glass modification hindered voter verification.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and ruled:

• 100% VVPAT slip counting is not required. The current method of verifying five randomly selected EVMs per constituency is sufficient.
• The demand to return to paper ballots is rejected. EVMs ensure faster, more accurate, and secure elections.
• The Court directed that symbol loading units should be sealed and preserved in strong rooms for 45 days post-election.
• Post-election verification of 5% of EVMs in each constituency may be conducted if candidates in second or third place request it.

Implications of the Judgment

• The ruling strengthens public confidence in EVMs and VVPATs.
• It prevents unnecessary delays in election results caused by 100% manual counting.
• It sets a precedent against frivolous challenges to electoral processes.
• The decision reinforces the authority of the Election Commission and affirms India’s commitment to modern voting technology.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the integrity of EVM-based elections in India. By dismissing calls for a return to paper ballots and extensive VVPAT counting, the Court has balanced the need for electoral transparency with administrative efficiency. The ruling ensures that elections remain fair, fast, and tamper-proof while allowing limited post-election verification to address concerns.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/election-commission-appointments-and-the-constitutional-challenge-supreme-courts-verdict/

Petitioner Name: Association for Democratic Reforms.
Respondent Name: Election Commission of India.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Dipankar Datta.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 26-04-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: association-for-demo-vs-election-commission-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-26-04-2024.pdf