The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that it cannot “control the elections” or issue directions simply because doubts have been raised about the efficacy of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM).
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas seeking complete cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT), after taking note of the answers to queries it had posed to the Election Commission.
During the day Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Nitesh Kumar Vyas, who had earlier made a presentation to the court on the functioning of EVMs, was summoned by the bench to appear at 2 p.m. to answer the queries.
Vyas, while responding to the question about microcontrollers, said they are one-time programmable at the time of manufacture and installed in all the three units of EVMs–the balloting unit, VVPAT and the control unit. They cannot be reprogrammed thereafter, he asserted.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner NGO ‘Association for Democratic Reforms’, claimed the EC official’s statement was not fully correct. He cited a report by a private body to back his contention.
“The report says that the kind of memory used in these three units can be reprogrammed. A malicious programme can easily be uploaded at the time of symbol loading,” he claimed, adding efforts should be made to remove the doubts about the transparency of EVMs.
Justice Khanna told Bhushan that the court has to rely on the data and information provided by the EC, a constitutional body, which says the programme in the memory of an EVM can be written only once.
“If you are prejudiced or predisposed about something, then we cannot help it. We cannot change your thought process,” the bench told Bhushan.
Justice Datta said, “Can we issue a mandamus (directions) on the basis of a suspicion? The report you (Bhushan) are relying on goes on to say that there is no incident of manipulation yet. We can’t control the elections. We are not the controlling authority of another constitutional authority.”
He told Bhushan that law will take care if something goes wrong with the voting machines.
The bench recalled that the top court had in the past issued two orders on VVPAT, an independent vote verification system which enables electors to see whether their votes have been recorded correctly.
“One order was passed when the court ordered the use of VVPAT during elections and the other order was when the court directed that the use of VVPAT should be increased from one to five booths. Now, you all want us to issue directions for going back to ballot papers,” the bench said, adding all it can do is pass directions to strengthen the existing EVM system, if required.
The apex court had in April 2019 asked the poll panel to increase the number of EVMs that undergo VVPAT physical verification from one to five per assembly segment in a parliamentary constituency.
