On 26th April the Supreme Court of India gave the verdict on the continuance of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) system as such. There is no going back for paper ballot. The verdict of the apex court must be accepted. At the same time, the interpretation and reliance over the reply given by the petitioner’s side and the poll body have to be discussed in all its fairness.
The machine system consists of 3 components viz. Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) and the controlling unit. Once the vote is cast on the machine, it can be ensured through VVPAT by exhibiting the election symbol for which the voter preferred the choice. In respect of counting of votes, the vote cast details from EVMs are enumerated. The same details are also available in VVPAT. If both these details are tallied, it could be considered accurate counting. If there occurs difference, reckoning the scale of difference while tallying in between the two sources that are already interconnected is a must. It may be through either ignoring the insignificant difference or recounting.
Of course, under the machine system there should not be any difference in the votes counted. At present counting with VVPATs must be carried on only in the 5 per cent of the total VVPAT of the polling constituency as directed by the poll body viz. Election Commission (EC). The direction for only 5 per cent VVPAT is arbitrary and that is not as per the statistical method. While the court proceedings were in progress an EC official answered a question raised that reprogramming the three components of EVMs is not possible. Based on that, the Justice Sanjiv Khanna replied to the petitioners’ side that the source code should never be disclosed, since it will be misused. The petitioner raised dispute saying the micro controllers’ manufacturers’ data suggested they could be reprogrammed. It was concluded by the court “He (the official) has clarified the doubt” and that “we have to rely on them (EC) on technical data”. It was further said in the verdict that “blind distrust” of the system is bad for progress”.
In the concurring judgment, Justice DipankarDatta suggested a “critical as well as constructive approach guided by evidence and reason in the place of, “blind distrust”, but the approach of the EC and the courts has championed blind trust instead. Machine, in this case electronic machine would not be in favour or against anyone. The programme set in by humans in the machine leads to unpalatable outcome. Machine is not perfect to the extent it allows human intervention at any point of time in the process. The scope available for intervention must be dealt with very deeply.
It is ensured that scope is available for the open ‘source code’; the assurance given by the poll body that the source code should never be disclosed also confirms the availability of open ‘source code’. It leads to the perception that misuse of the source code is also possible. Who misuses it and, at what stages misuse takes place, the gravity of misuse – analysing all these would be a perfect hypothetical exercise. For a densely populated country like India, when the voters’ numerical strength is huge, duplication incounting may not be practicable (100% counting of VVPAT). If dispute arises on those grounds during counting of votes and if the apex court is approached, it is hopeful very much, that the court would deliver justice!
