Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta are hearing a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in the Supreme Court. The judges hearing the case said they still haven’t forgotten what happened when the ballots were voted on.
(Photo: The Wire)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 16) disapproved of the idea of ​​going back to the era of paper ballots, hearing petitioners who challenged voting through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The judges hearing the case said they still haven’t forgotten what happened when the ballots were voted on.
According to the Indian Express, Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta are hearing a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in the Supreme Court.
Justice Khanna told senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing ADR, “Fortunately, we are now in our 60s. We’ve seen what happened before. Did you forget this? Sorry if you forgot, I didn’t.’
The court asked Prashant Bhushan, what do you want now? Prashant Bhushan said he approached the court with two demands: First, to return to the ballot paper for the elections and second, a 100% voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) of the EVM votes Currently, randomly selected EVM votes are being linked to the tickets VVPAT in each constituency.
Expressing surprise at Justice Khanna’s statement, Prashant Bhushan said, “Do you mean cab hijacking?” To this, Justice Khanna said, “Forget the booth capture, what happens when the ballot papers are there… anyway. Let’s not get into an argument.’
They learned that Prashant Bhushan had raised the ballot issue when another judge, Dipankar Dutta, asked him what option he had in mind other than EVMs.
In his argument, Bhushan said, “Earlier there was a ballot paper, there can be a ballot paper. Most European countries have returned to ballots. He also pointed to the decision of the German Constitutional Court on why EVMs cannot be trusted and therefore paper ballots should be used.
Justice Dutta rejected the proposal saying that conducting elections in India is a huge task. It is not possible for any European country to operate it. Don’t compare it with Germany and other countries.
Justice Dutta said, “The population of my native state of West Bengal is more than the population of Germany. We have to trust someone. Don’t try to damage the system like this. Don’t give examples… it’s too much work… and European examples don’t work here.’
The bench also asked several questions about the functioning of EVMs and the process of storing and counting votes. The court also questioned the ADR’s statement that “Majority of voters do not trust EVMs? How did you get this data?’
To this Bhushan replied that it was a CSDS – Lok Niti poll. In this regard, Justice Dutta said that we do not believe in private surveys.
Justice Khanna said, “Such an argument cannot be accepted as there is no record in this regard. A private survey won’t do it… it’s possible that another survey will do the opposite. Don’t get into all of them.’
The petitioner claimed that the EVM is manufactured by a public sector undertaking and the technical person there is not responsible.
To this, Justice Khanna said: ‘Would you be happy if the private sector produced machines?… If the private sector produced, would you be happy?’ Then you come here and say that the private sector shouldn’t be doing it.”
“If we have to find out whether the EVMs are working properly, we have to go through the data,” the bench said. In how many cases were there inconsistencies in what the poll total was in a particular year and how it matched up with the total votes that were later counted? Finally, in how many cases did the candidates ask to count the pads, how many discrepancies were found in them. This will give us a true picture of whether the EVMs are tampered with or likely to be tampered with or not. This data will provide. We will ask them for this data.’
“We are not saying that EVMs are being tampered with or that it is being done,” Bhushan said. We are saying that EVMs can be tampered with because both EVMs and VVPATs have a programmable chip.”
Other suggestions, he said, are that voters can personally collect the VVPAT ticket and insert it into the ballot box to ensure that their vote is recorded correctly and that the opaque glass panels on the EVMs be replaced with transparent glass so that everyone can see what is happening. happening inside.
According to the petitioners, the Election Commission of India has said that it will take 12 days to count all the VVPAT tickets.
Bhushan said the Election Commission said it could not share the source code of the EVM chips, citing the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer, and this raised further doubts about the machines. He said the EVMs are being assembled by two public sector undertakings – Electronics Corporation of India Limited and Bharat Electronics, which have several Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) functionaries as directors.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan referred to a news report on ECI data on the discrepancy between the number of votes cast on EVMs and the number of votes counted in some constituencies during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. He said that in the 373 constituencies where voting took place in the first election phase, there were “serious irregularities”.
However, the panel said that sometimes there may be discrepancies as the button may not have been pressed immediately, but in such cases the candidates will have the data and ask for the VVPAT tickets to be counted.
Justice Khanna said: ‘If there is any such discrepancy… every candidate will get this data… the candidates will have to challenge it immediately.’
Sankaranarayanan said the figure came later but the bench disagreed.
Referring to the July 2023 Committee on Government Assurances report, Sankaranarayanan also said that in July 2023, “the parliamentary panel said that the central government had promised the parliament that during the 2019 elections, EVMs and VVPATs would ask for information from the polls.” The Commission has not yet responded to possible discrepancies between the assemblies, but over the past four years.”
The bench said it would ask the election commission about it.
Sankaranarayanan also expressed concern over the rule that a voter applying for a VVPAT slip will have to give an affidavit that he will be aware of the consequences if his claim is found to be false, with 6 imprisonment up to one month and a fine up to Rs. 1000 Rs. He said it works as a defense in the process.
Justice Khanna said: “There is a reason behind it. At this stage, the voter is not given even a piece of paper. If he asks for a paper ticket, he will be entitled to it. But then it will be necessary to stop the electoral process. Someone will have to open the machine and take it out, representatives of the candidates will have to be called.”
Justice Khanna further said look at the practical side of things. Suppose 10 percent people ask for tickets, then the entire election process can come to a standstill.
The next hearing in the matter will be held on April 18.
