The Supreme Court reiterated today that it does not hold authority to control elections or dictate the functioning of the Election Commission, which is a separate constitutional entity.
These statements arose during the hearing on petitions advocating for comprehensive cross-verification of votes cast via Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with paper slips produced by the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system. The court has opted to reserve judgment for the time being.
The bench, consisting of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, raised questions regarding the court's ability to take action solely based on suspicion.
In response to concerns presented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, the court remarked, " if you are predisposed about a thought-process, then we cannot help you... we are not here to change your thought process."
The petitions, fuelled by the Opposition's doubts surrounding the EVM voting system, aim to mandate cross-verification of all EVM votes with VVPAT-generated paper slips. Currently, this verification process is limited to five randomly selected EVMs in each constituency.
==========
==========
During previous hearings, petitioners highlighted issues of public trust and referenced European nations reverting to traditional ballot voting systems. However, the court dismissed such comparisons, citing unique challenges in the Indian context. Meanwhile, the Election Commission reaffirmed the reliability of the existing voting system.
The EVM setup consists of a control unit, a balloting unit, and is linked to a VVPAT machine, allowing voters to confirm the accuracy of their votes. As today's proceedings commenced, the court sought clarifications from the Election Commission regarding microcontrollers within the system and their potential for reprogramming.
The Election Commission clarified that each unit possesses its microcontrollers, programmed only once. Mr. Bhushan countered, claiming these microcontrollers have reprogrammable flash memory. The court, however, held that it is relying on the poll body's technical expertise, acknowledging the limited capacity of flash memory and the unit's apolitical function.
When Bhushan raised concerns about loading malicious programs into the flash memory, the court reiterated its stance, stating it cannot issue directives based solely on suspicion, and its non-controlling role over another constitutional authority like the Election Commission.