Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court of India delivered a verdict in the Association of Democratic Reforms vs. Election Commission of India, addressing the petitioner’s demands to return to paper ballots and 100% vote verification through VVPAT slips. The court rejected these demands, emphasizing the need for a balanced perspective on the electoral system and cautioning against undue skepticism that could hinder progress.
ISSUES:
- Rejection of Pleas for Paper Ballots and Full VVPAT Verification: The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, unequivocally rejected the petitioner’s pleas for a return to paper ballots, the issuance of printed paper ballots to each voter to be placed in a ballot box and counted in total, and the counting of every vote through a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slip, which would have amounted to 100% verification of votes.
- Interventions to Enhance Trust in the Voting System: Despite rejecting the pleas, the Court issued two significant directions to enhance the transparency and credibility of the voting process. The first direction mandates that Symbol Uploading Units (SULs) be kept in a substantial room for 45 days after election results are declared for examination and scrutiny. The second direction allows candidates who finish in second or third place to request a check of EVMs in their constituency, with 5% of machines per assembly segment to be examined.
- Maintaining a Balanced Perspective: The verdict emphasized the importance of maintaining a balanced perspective when evaluating systems or institutions and cautioned against blind distrust, which can lead to unwarranted skepticism and hinder progress.
- Affirmation of the Current Voting System: Justice Datta, in his judgment, stated that the question of returning to ballot papers does not arise, as the current electronic voting system has no significant flaws and has received global acclaim.
- Unnecessary Criticism of the Petitioner’s Intentions: Justice Datta’s suggestion that the petitioner’s intentions might be malicious or an attempt to undermine the nation’s accomplishments was unnecessary and avoidable. The petitioner, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), has a history of monitoring the electoral process and raising legitimate concerns.
- Election Commission’s Efforts to Assuage Concerns: The Election Commission of India has consistently addressed EVMs through hackathons and introduced the VVPAT system in 2012 to ensure a paper trail for verifying the electronic vote.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Enhanced Transparency with Symbol Loading Units (SLUs): The Court’s directive to seal and store SLUs in a substantial room for 45 days post-elections allow for a period during which these units can be scrutinized if necessary. This measure adds a layer of transparency to the process, ensuring that the symbols loaded into the EVMs are the ones that were intended and used during the election.
- Provision for Candidate-Requested EVM Examination: Allowing candidates in second or third place to request the examination of 5% of EVMs per assembly segment provides a formal mechanism for addressing concerns about the vote count. This process should be communicated to all candidates and parties to ensure they know their rights and procedures.
- Exploration of Technological Advancements: Justice Khanna’s suggestion that the Election Commission consider using electronic machines to count paper slips and barcodes should be taken seriously. The EC should conduct feasibility studies and pilot projects to assess these technologies’ practicality and potential benefits.
- Continued Public Education and Outreach: The Election Commission should continue educating the public about the EVM and VVPAT systems. This could include more hackathons, public demonstrations, and informational campaigns to build trust and understanding among voters.
- Regular System Audits and Upgrades: Independent experts can conduct regular EVM and VVPAT systems audits to help identify and address potential vulnerabilities. Additionally, the EC should stay abreast of technological advancements and upgrade systems as necessary to maintain the highest standards of election integrity.
- Strengthening Legal Frameworks: The legal frameworks governing the use of EVMs and VVPATs should be reviewed and strengthened to ensure they are robust and capable of addressing emerging challenges.
- Addressing Concerns Constructively: While skepticism about the electoral process can be healthy, it is essential to address such concerns constructively. The EC and the judiciary should remain open to legitimate inquiries and criticisms and respond in a manner that reinforces the credibility of the electoral system.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the credibility of India’s electronic voting system and introduced additional measures for vote verification to enhance trust. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining confidence in the electoral process, which is crucial for the functioning of democracy. It highlighted the ongoing efforts to address concerns about the voting system through technological and procedural safeguards.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India, considering the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct. 2022
Q.2 Considering the recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India? 2018
Q.3 To enhance the quality of democracy in India, the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms, and how significant are they in making democracy successful? 2017
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Evaluate the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent directives on using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems to enhance the transparency and credibility of elections in India. Discuss the role of judicial interventions in maintaining the integrity of electoral processes.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word