EVM-VVPAT review: Petition cites apparent errors
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, upheld its decision from April 26, dismissing a review petition that sought mandatory cross-verification of votes cast in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips.
A bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna reviewed the petition and concluded that it did not present sufficient grounds to reconsider the earlier verdict. Justice Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta stated, “We have carefully perused the review petition, as also the grounds in support thereof. We believe no case for review of the judgment dated 26.04.2024 has been made out. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”
This decision reaffirms the Supreme Court’s stance on the procedure for electoral verification, maintaining the status quo set by its earlier ruling.
In a detailed order passed on April 26, the top court said that while it acknowledged the fundamental right of voters to ensure their vote is accurately recorded and counted, the same cannot be equated with the right to 100 percent counting of VVPAT slips, or a right to physical access to the VVPAT slips, which the voter should be permitted to put in the drop box.
It had said that giving voters physical access to VVPAT slips is “problematic and impractical” and will lead to “misuse, malpractices, and disputes”.
The Supreme Court had also rejected the submission to return to the ballot paper system as “foible and unsound”, adding that the weakness of the ballot paper system was well-known and documented.
It had passed two directions not because it had any doubt, but to only further strengthen the integrity of the election process.
First, all Symbol Loading Units (SLUs) will be sealed on or after May 1 on completion of the symbol loading process and will be kept in the strong room at least for 45 days post declaration of results.
Second, the burnt memory of microcontrollers in 5 percent of the EVMs per Assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency will be checked and verified by a team of engineers from EVM manufacturers post announcement of results on a written request made by the candidates securing second and third-highest votes within seven days from the date of the declaration of results.
It had said that the District Election Officer in consultation with the team of engineers will certify the authenticity and intactness of the burnt memory or the microcontroller.
The review petition, filed under Article 137 of the Constitution, claimed that there were “mistakes and errors apparent on the face of the impugned order”, adding that the judgment was liable to be reviewed.
