The Supreme Court of India dismissed several writ petitions challenging the reliability and transparency of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) systems. Petitioners called for 100% counting of VVPAT slips and a return to paper ballots, but the Court rejected these arguments, reaffirming the credibility of EVMs while issuing directives to further strengthen safeguards and transparency in the electoral process.

1. Introduction and Delay Condonation (¶ 1-2)

   • The petitions were filed questioning the integrity of EVMs and VVPAT systems, proposing alternatives like returning to the paper ballot or counting 100% of VVPAT slips.

2. Arguments by Petitioners (¶ 3-4)

   • Petitioners suggested that EVMs could be manipulated, raising concerns about modifications to the VVPAT window and challenging Rule 49MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

3. Historical Use of EVMs (¶ 5-6)

   • EVMs were introduced as a reform for transparent and tamper-proof voting. They have been used in India since 2004, with legislative backing through amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

4. Previous Judicial Precedents (¶ 7-15)

   • The Court cited earlier cases such as Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013) and N. Chandrababu Naidu v. Union of India (2019), upholding EVM reliability and limiting VVPAT verification.

5. EVM Mechanism and Safeguards (¶ 16-41)

   • The Court explained the technicalities of EVMs, including the roles of the control unit, ballot unit, and VVPAT, detailing the multi-layered security mechanisms in place to prevent tampering.

6. Role of Manufacturers and Randomization (¶ 19-28)

   • EVMs are manufactured by government-owned corporations and undergo rigorous randomization processes before deployment to prevent manipulation.

7. Mock Polls and Post-Poll Verification (¶ 34-55)

   • EVMs undergo multiple mock polls and post-poll checks, including counting of VVPAT slips from randomly selected polling stations, further ensuring transparency.

8. Performance and Rejections of Challenges (¶ 56-64)

   • The Court emphasized that independent studies, including tallying over 4 crore VVPAT slips, found no discrepancies in vote counts, except in one case of human error.

9. Dismissal of Suspicion Over EVMs (¶ 65-76)

   • The Court dismissed claims that EVMs could be tampered with or re-engineered, calling the doubts unfounded and rejecting the plea to return to the paper ballot system.

10. New Directions for Transparency (¶ 76)

    • The Court issued two key directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI): sealing of symbol-loading units post-results, and allowing verification of burnt memory in a limited number of EVMs upon written request from candidates.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Representation of the People Act, 1951: Key provisions for the use of EVMs in elections.
• Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: Rule 49MA, governing procedures for handling complaints about mismatches in VVPAT and EVM results.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 177, referred to in Rule 49MA regarding false declarations by voters.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court held that EVMs and VVPATs ensure a transparent and tamper-proof election process, dismissing unfounded claims of manipulation. While recognizing the voters' right to verify their vote, the Court rejected demands for 100% VVPAT slip counting or reverting to paper ballots, noting the practicality and efficiency of the current system. The Court's decision reaffirms the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission to conduct free and fair elections.

Subjects:

Election Laws, EVM, VVPAT, Election Transparency

Electoral reforms, Rule 49MA, Representation of the People Act