By Sushil Kutty
The Supreme Court observed humans can manipulate electronic voting machines but is averse to the return of ballot papers. Also, trust in the Election Commission is not 100 percent. The word used was “manipulate”. But ballot papers are a strict “no-no” as “India is not Germany”. Final apex thought: The EVM, while accurate by all means, can be tampered with by “human beings”, but will rule the roost. So, wait for new trustworthy technology? Perhaps Artificial Intelligence intervenes and the EVM learns to become “self-aware”.
The story so far, EVMs come with a risk but ballot papers are ‘no-no' because “India is not Germany” and conducting elections in India is an unwieldy affair, which was the reason why ballot papers were left out in the cold in the first place apart from all the criminal aspects of elections that paper ballots bring to the table.
Those in their 60s will remember booth-capturing, ballot-stuffing and the terror penned in an election booth when unidentified dacoits would slam the door on straightforward voting and become returning officers. By then, the police would have vanished. Those days ransacked voting stations weren't a rare sight during elections. The Germans would laugh if it happened now. For a contemporary parallel, think of a raid at a toll booth on an expressway. But the misdemeanours that gave a bad name to elections are a thing of the past, thanks largely to the electronic voting system.
The Supreme Court also appeared to be against “implementing 100 percent counting of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs)”. The Opposition is cursing its luck and the petitioners have a right to be disappointed. Especially, when outlandish electoral claims are made and remade, again and again, repeatedly, like now, during the run-up to the 2024 general elections.
By none other than Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose repeated claims of “400 paar” raises doubts of a preplanned game-plan. And, naturally, the EVM is the “last man standing”. There is a risk of “human manipulation”, more so, when there is no VVPAT. Petitioners who took the EVM to court aren't convinced the verdict will be a happy one. Hiding behind what happened in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s isn't the solution.
It is the Election Commission's responsibility to hold free and fair elections, elections without interference. And the Model Code of Conduct is a powerful intervention in the hands of the EC. How it accomplishes the task and how it ensures secure violence-free elections is the EC's guarantee, not the Modi government's guarantee though it wouldn't be long for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to claim glory.
Unfortunately, for the petitioners, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta weren't being rocked by the arguments paraded by their advocates. The Justices had long memories. “We are in our 60s. What we have seen, we have not forgotten. We all know what happened when there were ballot papers. You may have forgotten, but we have not,” they summed it up.
The Justices held that the court was dealing with a “larger issue” and “we don't want to get into it, we all know the drawbacks of the system of ballot papers”. Words such as “trust”, “manipulation” and “vulnerable” were all water off a duck's back.
Does the majority of voters not trust EVM? And is it certain that as the source code of the chips in the EVM are not shown, it creates greater suspicion? A mention of the constitutional court of Germany was made. Germany had recalled EVMs and returned to paper ballots, but the Justices are no strangers to Germany. “What is the population of Germany? Our country can't be compared with any European country. The population of even my state…is greater than any of the European countries. We need to repose some trust and faith. Do not try to bring down the system like this.”
A private survey, which claimed the majority of the electorate didn't trust the EVM, was similarly jostled aside. The bench wouldn't touch a “private poll” with even a barge pole. The important question was, “Whether after voting is done, machines can be subjected to technical inspections and human intervention?”
The Election Commission's reply set the tone for the day: “Machines normally, without any wrong human intervention, will work properly, and will yield accurate results. Yes, the problem arises when there is human intervention to manipulate or make unauthorised changes.” The hearing continues on April 18, 2024. The Justices cannot be unaware that on April 19 the nation starts voting.
(IPA Service)
