'SC Verdict Erroneous, Only 1.97% Of VVPAT Counted Not 5%': Plea Against EVM Judgment Refusing 100% Cross-Verification

A review petition has been moved against the Supreme Court judgment which rejected the plea seeking 100% cross-verification of EVM data with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

The petitioner questioned the Supreme Court judgment and stated it is not correct to state that the result will be unreasonably delayed, ( Image Source :PTI )

A review petition has been moved by Arun Kumar Agarwal against the Supreme Court judgment which rejected the plea seeking 100% cross-verification of EVM data with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

On April 26, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta pronounced two separate, concurring judgements in the matter and issued two directions relating to sealing of Symbol Loading Units (SLU) and verification of 5% burnt memory microcontrollers per Assembly constituency of the Parliamentary constituency.

The review petition claims that the previous verdict contains following errors.

1) Not Correct To Say That Results Will Be Delayed

The petitioner questioned the top court judgment and stated it is not correct to state that the result will be unreasonably delayed, or the manpower required will be the double of that already deployed. The petition cited Returning Officer's hanbook to make his case.

"In the Returning Officer Handbook, 2023, there is a provision for placing 28 counting tables for electronic counting. The petitioner submits that if the same number of tables is utilized for counting of the VVPAT slips under the existing CCTV surveillance system, the
entire counting of average of 250 booths can be done within 5-8 hours with the additional manpower of (28 x 4) 108 persons per Assembly segment. Thus, it is not correct to state that the result will be unreasonably delayed, or the manpower required will be
the double of that already deployed."

The plea further states that the existing CCTV surveillance of counting halls would ensure that manipulation and mischief does not occur in VVPAT slip counting.

2) SLU Is Vulnerable And Needs To Be Audited

The petitioner stated that that the entire discussion on the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) in the judgment ignores the fact that SLU is vulnerable and needs to be audited.

"This Hon’ble Court completely overlooked the possibility that the data in the SLU can have extra bytes other than just the necessary
images." the plea states.

3) EVMs Are Especially Vulnerable To Malicious Changes, Only 1.97% VVPAT counted and not 5%

The plea states that percentage of VVPAT counted is only 1.97% and not 5% as noted in Para 10 and 11 of the Supreme Court judgment. The petitioner has cited data from a note plcaed by the ECI in the court.

As per ECI’s note handed over in court (Annexure No. 3 herein), at Serial No. 12 the issue ‘Growth in number of electors and machines
from 2019 to 2024’ was dealt with and the following figures were provided by the ECI.

"It is respectfully submitted that based on the above mentioned data it is evident that there are 10.48 lakhs booths. It is an admitted fact that there are 4123 assembly segments. Thus, the average booth per Assembly constituency is 10.48 lakhs/ 4123 =254 and in one Assembly constituency 5 booths are counted. Hence the percentage of VVPAT counted is 500/254 which comes out to be only 1.97% and not 5% as noted in Para 10 and 11 of the concurring judgment."

The petitioner submits that electronic voting machines do not allow voters to verify that their votes have been accurately recorded. "Furthermore, given their very nature, electronic voting machines are especially vulnerable to malicious changes by insiders such as designers, programmers, manufacturers, maintenance technicians, etc."

A batch of petitions were moved by NGO-Association for Democratic Reforms, Abhay Bhakchand Chhajed and Arun Kumar Aggarwal, seeking 100% cross verification of EVMs with VVPAT as against the current practice of verifying only 5 randomly selected polling stations in each assembly constituency. They further sought directions to ECI to ensure that a vote is 'recorded as cast' and 'counted as recorded'.

The ECI opposed the pleas saying that it was another attempt to cast doubt over the functioning of EVMs and VVPATs on 'vague and baseless' grounds.