Lok Sabha Elections 2024: The Supreme Court, in a significant development, has deferred its judgment on a series of petitions advocating for comprehensive cross-verification of votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). This decision follows a session where a senior official from the Election Commission (EC) provided insights into critical aspects concerning the functionality and security of EVMs and VVPATs, as well as the duration for retaining these machines.Courts observations and quest for clarityDuring the hearing, the court acknowledged its jurisdictional limitations concerning electoral processes, emphasizing that elections fall under the purview of another constitutional authority. However, it underscored the necessity for clarity, particularly regarding discrepancies observed in the ECs responses outlined in its frequently asked questions (FAQs) on EVMs.The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, sought elucidation on several fronts, including the role of micro-controllers within EVMs and VVPATs. Notably, there was confusion regarding the location and function of these micro-controllers, prompting the court to seek definitive clarification.Key clarifications providedSenior Deputy Election Commissioner Nitesh Kumar Vyas clarified that each unit, namely the control unit (CU), ballot unit (BU), and VVPAT, houses its dedicated micro-controller, safeguarded against physical tampering. Emphasizing the integrity of these micro-controllers, Vyas affirmed that they are programmed only once and cannot be altered thereafter.Additionally, the court sought clarification on the duration for which EVMs are stored, particularly in light of the filing period for election petitions. Contrary to previous understanding, the court discovered that the statutory period for filing such petitions extends to 45 days, necessitating a corresponding extension in the storage duration of EVMs.The EC official affirmed that all machines are indeed retained for 45 days, with further action contingent upon any election petitions filed within this timeframe.Advocacy for transparency and source code disclosureSenior advocate Santosh Paul advocated for greater transparency in electoral processes, urging for the disclosure of EVM source codes. However, the court dismissed this plea, citing concerns over potential misuse of the source code if made public.As the Supreme Court deliberates on the intricacies surrounding EVM-VVPAT cross-verification, the session underscores the significance of transparency and clarity in electoral procedures. With the ECs responses under scrutiny, the courts verdict holds implications for the integrity and accountability of Indias democratic framework.
