These candidates, including several prominent political figures, have raised doubts about the overall counting process and sought assurance regarding the proper functioning of the electoral system. Reportedly, the Election Commission has received verification requests from 95 assembly constituencies spread across 31 districts in Maharashtra. Among the applicants are well-known leaders such as Rajan Vichare, Balasaheb Thorat, Rajesh Tope and Kshitij Thakur from Nalasopara. Other prominent candidates who have submitted their applications include Kedar Dighe who contested against Ekanth Shinde from Kopari Pachpakhadi, Yugendra Pawar who fought against his uncle Ajit Pawar from Baramati, Rohini Khadse daughter of NCP leader Eknath Khadse from Muktainagar, former minister Rajesh Tope from Ghansawangi, Hitendra Thakur from Vasai.

According to the judgement of the Supreme Court (in the midst of conduct of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls), dated 26, 2024, a specific modality was set for how the Microcontroller SLU Verification would/must take place. In what appears to be a violation of this directive, Returning Officers (RO) are telling candidates in Maharashtra that only a “mock poll” would be carried out.

Vote for Democracy (VFD) a citizens platforms, asked one of its experts Professor Harish Karnick formerly an alumni with IIT Kanpur to respond to what appears to be one more questionable abdication by the Election Commission of India.

This video below explains the entire controversy.
 

Details of Verifications sought

Notably, Thane district recorded the highest number of verification requests, with 12 applications filed. Pune followed close behind, with 11 requests. A total of 137 EVMs have been sought for inspection. In contrast, five districts — Sindhudurg, Amravati, Wardha, Nandurbar and Gadchiroli — have so far reportedly not report any applications for machine verification.

The Maharashtra assembly elections saw a surprise significant victory for the BJP-led Mahayuti, comprising Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena and Ajit Pawar’s NCP faction. The BJP emerged as the single largest party, securing 132 seats out of the 149 contested, while the Shiv Sena and the NCP won 57 and 41 seats, respectively. Together, the ‘grand alliance’ amassed 237 seats, a resounding majority in the 288-member assembly.

The Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT) has emerged as the largest opposition party in the Maharashtra assembly, securing 20 seats. The Congress followed with 16 wins, while the NCP (SP) faction led by Sharad Pawar ended with 10 seats. From the first day itself however, allegations of discrepancies in the counting process have sparked fresh debates over the reliability of EVMs and VVPAT systems.

Said one candidate to the media, “I have been in discussions with Uddhav Thackeray, who mentioned receiving complaints from party workers alleging possible tampering with EVMs. Similar complaints are coming from across the state, and many candidates, including myself, are applying for machine verification,” he said.

Citing the Supreme Court’s April 26, 2024 ruling, Khan emphasised the mandatory verification of 5 per cent of EVM systems — comprising the control unit, the ballot unit and VVPAT — for each constituency. This verification involves testing for tampering or modifications by a team of engineers from the EVM manufacturers.

According to the guidelines, defeated candidates positioned second or third in their constituencies can file a request for verification within seven days of the results. The verification process incurs a fee of Rs 41,000, refundable only if tampering is detected. The microcontroller chip in the EVMs is a one-time programmable component embedded during manufacturing, which ensures it cannot be reprogrammed after deployment.

A Sena (UBT) MLA from Mumbai alleged mismatches between the number of votes cast and counted in specific constituencies, raising doubts over the electoral process. “Almost all opposition candidates have expressed concerns about the functioning of EVMs,” the MLA said.

As opposition leaders push for transparency, these allegations bring renewed attention to the integrity of India’s voting system. While the Election Commission claims to have implemented measures to address such concerns, the widespread doubts raised post-election highlight the need for robust safeguards to maintain public confidence in democratic processes.

Related:

Markadwadi, Pune, Sholapur, Akola, are protests against ECI mounting in Maharashtra?

Congress raises alarm over manipulated voter rolls in Maharashtra Assembly elections

Congress alleges anomalous voter turnout surge in Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024 in memorandum submitted to ECI

Democracy in question: Allegations of bias, EVM manipulation, and questions of legitimacy post 2024 Maha election result

Recounting ordered in Nashik West assembly election amid EVM tampering allegations

VFD’s draft reports points to “electoral manipulation and irregularities” in Haryana and J&K 2024 assembly elections

Elections amidst glitches: Maharashtra’s crucial poll day unfolds with complaints of barricading and EVM glitches

The post Transparency demand Maharashtra: Prominent leaders among 104 seeking EVM–VVPAT inspection appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On November 23, the results of the Maharashtra state assembly elections, which covered 288 constituencies across 36 districts, were declared. With the BJP unexpectedly sweeping the polls, the local media and social media was rife with stories of “manipulations.” Dissatisfied with the EVM counting process, in the small village of Markadwadi in Malshiras taluka, Solapur district, a wave of dissatisfaction followed the outcome of the election result. Villagers, especially in Markadwadi, were upset over the election results, particularly regarding the outcome of the Malshiras seat. While NCP (SP) candidate Uttamrao Jankar won the seat with a margin of 13,147 votes, Markadwadi villagers were shocked by the voting numbers in their village booth. Jankar secured only 843 votes in the village, while BJP’s Ram Satpute received 1,003—an outcome many found unlikely given the area’s historical support for Jankar.

Markadwadi, a village with a population of approximately 2,000, saw 1,900 of its residents cast their votes in the assembly elections. According to the villagers, the results at the booth level seem implausible, as they are all strong supporters of Jankar. They argue that Satpute, who has typically received 200-300 votes in the past, could not have gained a significant lead from their village.

Sabrangindia has been regularly bringing its leaders updates of the issues raised in various constituencies after the declaration of results. These may be read here and here.

Villagers decided to hold a “repoll” with ballot paper on December 3, large police contingent imposes curfew, books 200 villages in criminal cases.

As an expression of their dissatisfaction and disbelief at the results, a group of villagers decided to take a stand against the EVM voting, planning an unofficial mock-poll using paper ballots on December 3 to test the results. The villagers set up five makeshift booths and electoral rolls, replicating the official candidates and symbols. This happened at a time (November 23-December 3) when no government was in place –the Maharashtra governor had named the outgoing chief minister, Eknath Shinde as head of the caretaker government.

However, heavy police presence and administrative restrictions thwarted their plans. Malshiras sub-divisional magistrate, Vijaya Pangarkar, had previously dismissed the villagers’ request for a ballot-based re-poll, deeming it illegal and beyond the lawful scope of the election. Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita were enforced from December 2 to 5, prohibiting gatherings. “The elections were conducted transparently. Holding an unofficial poll now would be a violation of the law,” Pangarkar stated. As reported by the Free Press Journal

After police and administration’s intervention the villagers dropped the re-poll plan with ballot papers.

Ironically, under Section 59 of the Representation of Peoples Act paper ballot is the legal voting system in India. It is EVM voting which is illegal unless speaking order is passed by ECI under Section 61A of the Act for each constituency justifying it. Supreme Court judges seem to have not read the Act.

FIR filed against newly elected NCP(SP) MLA, Uttam Jankar and 200 other people

Following the unrest erupted in Markadwadi, the Solapur Rural police, day after filed an FIR on December 4 against newly elected NCP (SP) MLA Uttam Jankar and around 200 others for breaching prohibitory orders issued under section 163. This came after the district administration had cancelled the planned re-polling exercise, which aimed to challenge the EVM results of the November 20 election. Despite the administration denying permission, MVA supporters, led by Jankar, decided to proceed with the ballot voting.

In anticipation of potential unrest, the district authorities also imposed prohibitory orders and deployed heavy police forces in the village. Jankar, who had defeated BJP’s Ram Satpute from Malshiras, was present to support the mock polling. While the MVA supporters set up a pandal and made necessary arrangements, police held several meetings with the villagers and Jankar to persuade them to call off the event.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by ncp_malshiras_offical (@ncp_malshiras_offical)

Jankar alleged that police pressured the villagers into cancelling the poll by threatening to seize materials and take legal action. He claimed that the villagers had organised the exercise peacefully, but due to police threats, they cancelled it. Jankar vowed to continue their fight for justice, including a march to protest alleged EVM manipulation.

BJP’s Satpute criticized the event as a “drama” orchestrated by Jankar, accusing him of spreading a false narrative against EVMs. He also claimed that Jankar, with the support of BJP MLC Ranjeetsinh Mohite Patil, had intimidated villagers who opposed the polling.

On being charged by the police, Jhankar reacted that “We have a right to know the truth of voting. We are not technical experts, so we wanted to conduct a ballot-paper re-poll. Is there any democracy left in this country? When we want to speak up, who will give us justice? If no one listens to the people’s voice, it will lead to chaos in the country” as Hindustan Times Reported.

Even winning candidates stands against EVM voting

Uttamrao Jankar, despite being the victorious candidate from the Malshiras assembly constituency, raised significant concerns about the EVM outcomes, questioning their reliability. Similarly, Varun Sardesai, the newly elected MLA from Vandre East representing Shiv Sena (UBT), also expressed doubts, highlighting discrepancies between the EVM results and the early postal ballot trends in multiple constituencies. Sardesai presented a comparison based on the Lok Sabha elections, where postal ballot trends had indicated a victory for the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) with 30 to 31 seats, while the Mahayuti coalition was expected to win around 16 seats. The final results of those elections closely mirrored these projections, with the MVA securing 31 seats and the Mahayuti winning 17 seats.

However, the situation was starkly different in the assembly elections. Postal ballot trends initially suggested a tight contest, with MVA leading by securing 143 seats and Mahayuti trailing with 140. Yet, once the EVM votes were counted, the results diverged sharply, with the MVA parties winning a mere 46 seats, a dramatic fall from their earlier lead. On the other hand, the Mahayuti coalition surged to over 230 seats, far outpacing the initial postal ballot predictions.

There seems to be a consistent trend in the Postal Ballot vs EVM results in Maharashtra.

I put forth a presentation today showing the anomaly. pic.twitter.com/JmjxDiKez0

— Varun Sardesai (@SardesaiVarun) December 2, 2024

Unrest against EVM: a growing public movement for Electoral Integrity

Through the past week, since the declaration of results on November 23, there has been a widespread rise in dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Election Commission of India (ECI) has conducted the elections in Maharashtra. A significant number of both the public and candidates have raised concerns over the integrity of the voting process with allegations including illegal deletions of names from the voting list, questionable additions in the lists to the suspicious surge in voting percentages at close of polling time on November 20. Interestingly, even among the winning candidates, there is a growing scepticism regarding the credibility of the EVM results. This discontent has translated into widespread demonstrations and protests against the election outcomes, with allegations of manipulation of the election including doubts over the reliability of EVMs.

A senior activist from the Udhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena and voter, Raju Kohli from Solapur expressed his strong dissatisfaction with the process at the very time of the swearing-in of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis, stating that it represents the swearing of the EVM, not the will of the people of Maharashtra.

Other citizens also protested in Solapur against the recently conducted elections.

Pune

Meanwhile, a vociferous and energetic protest by the district leadership of the Indian National Congress (INC) and UBT-Shhiv Sena (Mohan Rao and Sushma Andare were seen at the protest) was witnessed in Pune, a historic city in the state.

This surge in public outcry highlights the significant challenges facing the electoral system, with increasing pressure on authorities to address concerns regarding the transparency and integrity of the ECI in general and the VVPAT software and SLU unit within the EVM system used in the elections.

In Maharashtra, over 34 candidates have filed requests for SLU verification to the Returning Officer, a number that surpasses the figures from the Lok Sabha elections. These requests reflect the deepening concerns surrounding the accuracy and fairness of the electoral process. On the swearing-in ceremony day of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, protests erupted in Pune and Sholapur, where demonstrators voiced their discontent, alleging manipulation during the EVM counting process.

People gathered in Ramlila Maidan in Delhi for EVM Hatao

Meanwhile, at the national level, on December 1, the DOMA Parisangh organised a large rally at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi, under the banner of “Save Constitution, Save Waqf, Save Reservation, Remove EVMs.” The rally saw significant participation from Congress leaders and supporters, with Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge leading the charge.

Kharge, along with KCC Chairman Dr. Udit Raj and other prominent national leaders of the Congress Party, addressed the crowd, highlighting their concerns about the perceived misuse of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

दुनिया के कई देशों ने ईवीएम हटा हटा दिया है और भारत में EVM भगवान है। pic.twitter.com/ecgG8nE6Dn

— DOMA PARISANGH (@aiparisangh) December 4, 2024

Kharge strongly emphasized the need to protect the integrity of the Indian Constitution, safeguard reservation policies, and ensure the protection of Waqf properties. However, the rally’s central theme was the call to remove EVMs, with participants expressing their growing dissatisfaction with the current electoral system. Many raised concerns that EVMs undermine the transparency and fairness of the election process, fuelling doubts about the legitimacy of election results.

EVM voting illegal unless speaking order passed by ECI u/s 61A of Peoples Act

The conduct of elections in India is entrusted to the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution. According to Section 59 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, voting in elections must be conducted by ballot, specifically through paper ballots. Paper ballot is the legally recognized voting system in India.

Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) are considered illegal unless the ECI issues a specific order under Section 61A of the Act. This section allows the ECI to justify the use of EVMs for a particular constituency by explaining the circumstances under which electronic voting machines are adopted. Such an order must be passed for each election, ensuring that the adoption of EVMs is transparent and legally sound. Thus, paper ballots remain the legitimate method for casting votes unless exceptional circumstances are officially documented and sanctioned by the Election Commission.

A general order for the use of the EVMs cannot be permitted, as the ECI has consistently issued such orders without providing the required justification or specific rationale for their use.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the 2024 Maharashtra state assembly elections, including in the village of Markadwadi, highlights a growing distrust of the ECI and its ability to conduct any election with a dispassionate and independent approach. While much of the anger has been directed at towards the functioning of parts of the Electronic Voting System (EVSs), other issues such as non-transparency in release of Voter Data, inadequacy of the SOPs issued following Supreme Court judgements etc have also been called in question. In Markadwadi NCP (SP) candidate Uttamrao Jankar’s victory in Malshiras, villagers expressed disbelief at the EVM results, as they felt that the voting patterns in their village did not align with historical trends.

This unrest reflects a larger, state-wide discontent regarding the transparency and integrity of entire election process, with even winning candidates, such as Jankar and Varun Sardesai, questioning the legitimacy of the results. Such sentiments have sparked protests, with citizens demanding a re-evaluation of the electoral process, including the potential removal of EVMs in favour of paper ballots, which are seen as more trustworthy.

As Maharashtra grapples with these electoral concerns, the needs for electoral reform intensify, urging both local and national authorities to address these growing doubts and restore faith in the democratic process.

Related:

Congress raises alarm over manipulated voter rolls in Maharashtra Assembly elections

Congress alleges anomalous voter turnout surge in Maharashtra Assembly Elections 2024 in memorandum submitted to ECI

Vote for Democracy (VFD) releases report on the conduct of General Election 2024

The post Markadwadi, Pune, Sholapur, Akola, are protests against ECI mounting in Maharashtra? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Responding to the plea for increasing voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) cross verification from present 5 EVMs machines (randomly chosen) in each Assembly Constituency (for both state assembly election and General Election) to 100% cross verification, Justice Khanna wrote that, “First, it will increase the time for counting and delay declaration of results. The manpower required would have to be doubled. Manual counting is prone to human errors and may lead to deliberate mischief. Manual intervention in counting can also create multiple charges of manipulation of results. Further, the data and the results do not indicate any need to increase the number of VVPAT units subjected to manual counting.”

However, significantly, the court did introduce measures to improve transparency and accountability of the present system by allowing runner up candidates positioned second and third after the highest polled candidate to seek verification and checking of burnt memory/microcontroller in 5% of EVMs per (respective) Assembly Constituency or Assembly  Segment in case of Parliamentary Election. 

The court recorded that such request for verification must be made within seven days of declaration of results and “The District Election Officer, in consultation with the team of engineers, shall certify the authenticity/intactness of the burnt memory/microcontroller after the verification process is conducted. The actual cost…for the said verification will be notified by the ECI, and the candidate making the said request will pay for such expenses. 

The expenses will be refunded, in case the EVM is found to be tampered.” Significantly, the court refused to accede to the petitioners’ request to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose source code of the EVM, arguing that revealing the source code can lead to its misuse.

The judgment also directed Election Commission (ECI) to ensure that Symbol Loading Units (matchbox sized apparatus used to put candidate and party information into VVPAT through laptop/PC) are sealed immediately upon use and stored in strong room(s) for 45 days after the declaration of results. Pertinently, the court remarked that feeding serial numbers and names of candidates and their party symbols in bitmap files (images) in VVPAT cannot be equated with uploading a (malicious) software, The Hindu reported. 

The verdict also rejected the plea to return to ballot paper system, describing the attempt as “foible and unsound”. In addressing another technical issue regarding the design of VVPAT, Justice Khanna in his judgement noted that “ECI has been categoric that the glass window on the VVPAT has not undergone any change” and “The tinted glass used on the VVPAT printer is to maintain secrecy and prevent anyone else from viewing the VVPAT slips”, though still allowing a voter to view her printed VVPAT slip for seven seconds, confirming her candidate and party choice. The petitioners in the case were arguing that not having a full transparent view of VVPAT’s workings raises suspicion as a voter might not be sure whether a fresh slip is produced every time, or the same slip is displayed (in the case where the previous voter had cast the vote for the same), thus illicitly cutting down votes of a party and benefitting a rival party.

The order may be read here:

How do EVM, VVPAT and Symbol Loading Unit function?

The Electronic Voting Machine or EVM unit consists of Control Unit (CU) and Ballot Unit, which jointly functions to successfully register a vote. The Control Unit is placed with the Presiding Officer or a Polling Officer and the Balloting Unit is placed inside the voting compartment, both are joined through a cable. The two units in the third generation EVMs are connected via VVPAT. The FAQ on EVM and VVPAT issued by the Election Commission notes that Polling Officer in-charge of the Control Unit will release a ballot by pressing the Ballot Button on the Control Unit and this in turn will enable the voter to cast his vote by pressing the blue button on the Balloting Unit against the candidate and symbol of his choice. 

Similarly, it explains that VVPAT is an “independent system attached with the Electronic Voting Machines that allows the voters to verify that their votes are cast as intended. When a vote is cast, a slip is printed containing the serial number, name and symbol of the candidate and remains exposed through a transparent window for 7 seconds. Thereafter, this printed slip automatically gets cut and falls in the sealed drop box of the VVPAT.”

EVMs were first used in 70-Parur Assembly Constituency of Kerala in the year 1982, and since then its use was gradually increased to cover all state and national elections. VVPAT was first introduced in a bye-election from 51-Noksen (ST) Assembly Constituency of Nagaland in 2013, though its field trial had already taken place in 2011. Currently, EVMs and VVPATs are manufactured by two public sector companies, namely, Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL) and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL).  These companies had recently refused the names and contact details of the manufacturers and suppliers of various components of EVMs and VVPATs under the RTI Act citing “commercial confidence”, Business Standard reported.

Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) is an apparatus used to transfer the details of parties and candidates for the given polling booth to VVPAT, in order to allow the latter to print the paper slip containing those details of chosen candidate and party symbol. SLUs were generally reused to feed the requisite information to numerous VVPATs across polling booths or constituencies, but with the latest court order on April 26, this will not be possible as SLUs need to be immediately sealed once they have transferred relevant data in a given constituency, and secured in a strong room, just like EVMs and VVPATs.

Challenges to the credibility of EVMs and VVPATs

While general allegations about hacking or manipulation of EVMs have been consistently raised by those who oppose EVMs on technological grounds, there has been no conclusive demonstration to prove the alleged charges, except with the possibility of physical tampering. Given that handling of EVMs is undertaken in a secured environment, with 24×7 CCTV surveillance of strong rooms, and double lock system, whose keys are held separately by two different officials appointed by the electoral officer, the possibility of large-scale rigging is difficult in the absence of physical access to the device or complicity of officials. Furthermore, EVMs cannot be connected to any wireless or Bluetooth connection given its manufacturing built.

Likewise, ECI has argued that the VVPAT has (burnt) one-time programmable memory and flash memory of 4 megabytes, which is designed to solely store and recognise a bitmap format file. It can store a maximum of 1024 bitmap files containing the symbol, the serial number and name of the candidate, and does not store or read any other software or firmware. This explanation came in response to the questions raised regarding the possibility of tempering with VVPAT machines or EVMs as connected to VVPATs through software manipulation or insertion of a malicious code.

Furthermore, first level checking (FLC) for EMVs and VVPATs are conducted in the presence of representatives of political parties to ensure that the devices are free of any flaw(s) or manipulation. This exercise is conducted well in advance of the polls (at least 120 and 180 days before the state assembly and the general election respectively), and the checked EVMs and VVPATs are then sealed with signatures of the representatives of political parties present on the said seal. For the remaining period before the election(s), the devices will continue to be placed in the strong rooms under CCTV surveillance, and only these checked devices can be used in the polls. There is also a separate checking process in before the beginning of the polls to ensure additionally level of trust and safety.  

More substantial charges against EVMs are regarding the handling of EVMs rather than against EVM per se, as several instances have some to light where poll body has castigated its officials for mishandling EVMs or not following proper guidelines and SOPs. The Election Commission has also rejected the news reports which claimed that around 20 lakh EVMs were missing from ECI records, saying that reports are misleading and fake. 

Incidentally, when EMVs were first piloted in 1982 in 50 out of 84 polling stations in the Parur constituency, the apex court had set aside the election result in the constituency, asking ECI to reconduct the polls using ballot papers as the law then did not permit the use of EVMs in the elections, as per the Indian Express report. As per the same report, later, in 1988, “the election law was amended to insert Section 61A, which allowed the ECI to specify the constituencies where votes would be cast and recorded by voting machines.” 

Past petitions nudging for improved electronic voting system

One of the earliest petitions requesting changes in the way EMVs were used in the elections was filed by Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2012) and Subramanian Swamy (Civil Appeal No.9093 of 2013), in which they urged the court to strengthen the electoral process by introducing paper slip trail so that the voter can verify that her vote was corrected recorded by the EVM machine. Swamy had argued that the EVMs were open to hacking, just like any other electronic device, irrespective of the claim made by the ECI to the contrary. Clubbing both the petitions, the Supreme Court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi delivered its judgement on October 8, 2013, directing the Election Commission, which in 2013 had already used VVPAT in all the 21 polling stations of Noksen Assembly Constituency of Nagaland, to expand its use in phased manner throughout the country. The bench noted in its judgement that “we are satisfied that the “paper trail” is an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections. The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can be achieved only with the introduction of the ‘paper trail’”. Thus, with this order, VVPAT came to be gradually used for all state and national level elections as an essential component of the election process to assuage the doubts regarding the credibility of EVMs, and strengthen the integrity of the elections.

The order may be read here:

In 2018, a year before the General Election of 2019, petition was filed in the Bombay High Court by Manoranjan Santosh Roy, alleging serious fraud and discrepancy in the purchases and handling of EVMs. The PIL in the case claimed that the information obtained through Right to Information (RTI) from manufacturers, Law Ministry, and ECI had conflicting answers to his queries on the purchase and the handling of EVMs. Some of the news media had reported that the petition in the court had revealed that 20 lakh EVMs were missing from the custody of ECI, suggesting mishandling of the EVMs, but the said reports were rejected by the ECI as misleading. 

In the same year, the petition filed by Delhi based Nyaya Bhoomi seeking replacement of EVMs with ballot papers in 2019 General Election was rejected by the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, K M Joseph, and M R Shah.

In 2018 another petition was filed by M.G. Devasahayam (Writ Petition (Civil) No.1514/2018) asking the Supreme Court to increase the VVPAT paper slips verification to 50% in every Assembly Constituency.  To undertake this, the petitioner asked the SC to quash the Guideline No. 16.6 of the Manual on Electronic Voting Machine and VVPAT which mandated verification of VVPAT paper slips in 1 polling booth per Assembly Constituency. ECI in its affidavit had maintained that the present ratio of verification was well above the statistically reasonable sample size of 479 EVM-VVPAT verification as suggested by the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI). It argued that the existing rule would result in verification of 4125 EVMs, way above 479 needed to achieve 99% accuracy in the election results. The petitioners in turn rejected the criteria suggested by ISI, and citing the authority of Dr. S.K. Nath (former Director General of the Central Statistics Organisation) argued that “Without counting of VVPAT paper slips in a significant percentage of polling stations in each constituency, the objectives of verifiability and transparency in the democratic process would remain unrealized”.  Incidentally, Dr. S.K. Nath had suggested that at least 30% cross verification must take place in a given assembly segment of 200 booths to achieve sufficient accuracy. This petition was eventually tagged with a batch of other petitions requesting the Supreme Court to issue similar directions with regard to the issues concerning EVM-VVPAT cross verification.

The order may be read here:

In the case of N Chandrababu Naidu vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 273 of 2019) the petitioners were making the same demand for increasing the verification to 50% cross verification of VVPAT paper slips with EVM vote count. Delivering the judgement in this case on April 8, 2019, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna increased the cross verification from 1 EVM-VVPAT cross verification to 5 per Assembly Constituency. In observed in its verdict that “If the number of machines which are subjected to verification of paper trail can be increased to a reasonable number, it would lead to greater satisfaction amongst not only the political parties but the entire electorate of the Country”. The bench did not agree to the threshold of 50% cross verification after taking into account the additional requirement of manpower and possibility of delay in the declaration of the results by 5-6 days.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Making Every Vote Matter 

EVM Malfunction: Does Criminalisation Deter Genuine Complaints? 

Is the Indian EVM & VVPAT System free, fair, fit for elections or can it be manipulated? 

VVPAT-EVM Verification: SC issues directions for fool-proofing EVM, sealing of EVMs & SLUs enabling runner-up candidate verification

The post How safe is my vote? A detailed look back at the EVM-VVPAT controversy in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While delivering the judgment, Justice Datta stated “While balanced perspective is important but blindly doubting a system can breed scepticism and thus meaningful criticism is needed. Be it judiciary, legislature, etc., democracy is all about maintaining harmony and trust among all the pillars. By nurturing a culture of trust and collaboration we can strengthen the voice of our democracy,” Bar and Bench provided.

Justice Datta further said that “Instead of unwarranted distrust, a critical yet constructive approach guided by evidence and reason should be followed…to ensure the system’s credibility and effectiveness”.

The pleas in the matter had been filed by NGO-Association for Democratic Reforms, Abhay Bhakchand Chhajed and Arun Kumar Aggarwal. The petitioners had prayed that instead of the prevalent procedure, where the Election Commission cross-verifies EVM votes with VVPATs in only 5 randomly selected polling stations in each assembly constituency, all VVPATs be verified. They further sought measures to ensure that a vote is ‘recorded as cast’ and ‘counted as recorded’.

It is essential to note that the Supreme Court bench had reserved its judgment on April 18. The matter was listed again on April 24 as the Bench wanted some technical clarifications from the Election Commission. The clarifications sought by the officer of the Election Commission were regarding the installation of the micro-controller and whether the same is one-time programmable or not. In addition to this, the bench had asked about the sealing of both the control unit and the VVPAT of EVMs, the number of Symbol Loading Units available and the limitation period for filing election petition. Taking into consideration the answers provided by the officer, the judgment was pronounced today.

Notably, as reported by LiveLaw, a total of two separate yet concurring judgments have been authored by the Bench in the said matter. During the delivery of the judgment, Justice Khanna said “We have elaborately discussed the protocols, technical aspects.” 

Directions issued by the Supreme Court:

The following directions were issued by the bench to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and other authorities:

1. Sealing and securing symbol loading unit: That on completion of the symbol loading process in the EVM undertaken on or after May 1, 2024, the symbol loading unit should be sealed and secured in containers. The bench directed the candidates and their representatives to sign the seal. It was further directed that the sealed containers containing the SLUs shall be kept in the store rooms along with the EVMs at least for 45 days post the declaration of results. The same will then be opened and sealed like EVMs.
2. Checking and verification of burnt memory: The bench allowed for the verification of the burnt memory semi-controller of 5% of EVMs per assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency in case a written request for the same is made by either of two runner-up candidates, after declaration of results. As provided by Justice Khanna, the burnt memory semi controller in 5% of the EVMs, i.e. the Control Unit, Ballot Unit and the VVPAT, per assembly constituency per parliamentary constituency shall be checked and verified by a team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVM post the announcement of results upon a written request by the runner-up candidates.

Notably, such a request by the candidates has to be made within 7 days of the declaration of the results. The bench further directed that the actual cost of the verification process has to be borne by the candidate making the said request. However, in case any discrepancy or tampering is found to have taken place with the EVM, the aforementioned expenses will be refunded.

The bench additionally directed that while making the request for verification, the candidates or their representatives shall identify the EVMs sought to be checked by the polling station or the serial number. The request is to be made within 7 days from the date of declaration of the results and all candidates (and their representatives) shall have the option to remain present at the time of verification. Notably, the bench directed that the district election officer shall certify the authenticity of the burnt memory;

It is crucial to note that Justice Khanna further asked the ECI to examine the feasibility for introducing an electronic machine for vote counting the paper slips. Furthermore, the Bench asked the ECI to consider whether, along with the symbols, there can be a bar code for each party.

Related:

ECI issues notice to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge after receiving complaint from BJP alleging violation of electoral laws by Rahul Gandhi for delivering “scurrilous” speeches against Prime Minister Modi

ECI issues notice to BJP party, and not the star campaigner himself, over alleged hate speech delivered by PM Modi, seeks response by 11 am, April 29

Is the Indian EVM & VVPAT System free, fair, fit for elections or can it be manipulated?

EVM security: Whose responsibility is it anyway?

The post VVPAT-EVM Verification: SC issues directions for fool-proofing EVM, sealing of EVMs & SLUs enabling runner-up candidate verification appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Citizen’s Commission on Elections was headed by Justice Lokur as Chairperson with Wajahat Habibullah, former Chief Information Commissioner as Vice-Chairperson and members: Justice (retd) Hariparanthaman, former Madras High Court Judge, Prof. Arun Kumar, Malcolm S. Adiseshiah Chair Professor, Institute of Social Sciences , Subhashis Banerjee, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Delhi Pamela Philipose, Senior Journalist Dr John Dayal, Writer and Activist. The Covenor and Coordinator were Sundar Burra, former Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and M. G. Devasahayam, IAS (retd) respectively.

In its extensive report that explores the various aspects of the EVM and VPAT system as it exists, the Commission makes the following broad recommendations:

Software and hardware independence

The electronic voting system should be re-designed to be software and hardware independent in order to be verifiable or auditable. EVMs cannot be assumed to be tamper-proof. As defined by Rivest [9], a voting system is software (hardware) independent if an undetected change in software (hardware) cannot lead to an undetectable change in the election outcome. Any solution that relies crucially on the correctness of the EVM is not software and hardware independent.

End-to-end (E2E) verifiability

One way to achieve software and hardware independence is to use E2E verifiable systems with provable guarantees of correctness. The overall correctness of voting is established by the correctness of three steps: cast-as-intended indicating that the voting machine has registered the vote correctly, recorded-as-cast indicating the cast vote is correctly included in the final tally, and counted-as recorded indicating that final tally is correctly computed. There must also be guarantees against spurious vote injection. These guarantees should be publicly verifiable.

ECI should explore the possibility of using an E2E verifiable system [2].

Re-design of the VVPAT system

The VVPAT system should be re-designed to be fully voter-verified [18, 11, 12]. The voter should be able to approve the VVPAT printout before the vote is finally cast, and be able to cancel if there is an error.

Moreover, in case a voter disputes that the vote has been incorrectly recorded, there must be a clear method of determination either in favour of the voter or in f a v o u r o f the authorities [12]. This may not be possible in a pure DRE based system like the ECI’s EVM, because the machine may not make the same error when tested and because it is not possible to determine, without doubt, whether it did originally make the error. In this case, the voter cannot be penalized.

End-of-poll audits

To be compliant with democratic principles there is a definite need to move away from certification of voting equipment and processes and demonstrate that the out- come of an election is correct irrespective of machines and custody chains of EVMs. Two ways to do this are by adopting rigorous and well established strategies for compliance and risk limiting audits [6, 17, 2] or by using a provably end-to-end verifiable cryptographic protocol, or both [2, 18, 12]. In any case, the ECI needs to change the currently prescribed policy for VVPAT based audit with more rigorous risk-limiting audit based sampling strategies [6] before the results are announced.

Also there must be a clear pre-announced protocol for deciding the outcome – including possible re-polling – if there is a mismatch between the VVPAT and the electronic tallies [3].

Legislation

There has to be legislation to deal with the cases when the audit, and subsequent recount, reveal a problem. Legislation will also be required to regulate when, and if, a candidate can request a hand count. Best practices suggest that such legislation be based on established statistical principles, as opposed to the judgment of individual election officials, to the extent possible [18].

Independent review

The voting system design should be subjected to independent (of the government and ECI) review and the integrity of the election process should be subjected to independent audit.

The findings should be made public.

Transparent processes

Finally, the election processes need to be completely transparent and should not have too many requirements of trust on authorities and experts, including on ECI [3, 10, 18, 12, 11]. All design details should be publicly available. Also, there should be more public consultations, and public and civil society concerns should be transparently and fairly handled.

Finally, if we opt for electronic elections and bring computer science and statistics into public life, then we cannot leave their disciplinary rigour behind.

Specific Recommendations:

Specifically the report released on January 26, 2024 recommends:

1. The decision making processes within the ECI need to be much more logical, rigorous and principled compared to what it was for the 2019 parliamentary
2. EVMs cannot be assumed to be tamper-proof. The electronic voting system should be redesigned to be software and hardware independent in order to be verifiable or This does not imply that software or hardware cannot be used, but that the correctness of the election outcome cannot be entirely dependent on their working correctly.
3. The VVPAT system should be re-designed to be fully voter-verified. The voter should be able to approve the VVPAT printout before the vote is finally cast, and be able to cancel if there is an
4. The integrity of the VVPAT slips and the EVM machines during the entire time after polling and before counting and auditing must be ensured in a manner that is verifiable by all (and especially the candidates). There should be no trust requirement on the custody
5. There must be stringent audit of the electronic vote count before the results are The audit should not be based on ad hoc methods but by counting a statistically significant sample of the VVPAT slips according to rigorous and well established statistical audit techniques. The audit may in some cases – depending on the margin of victory – require a full manual counting of VVPAT slips.
6. There should be legislation to decide what is to be done if the audits reveal a Such legislation should ideally be based on well-established statistical procedures and not on subjective decision of a few officials.
7. There is a definite need to move away from certification of voting equipment and processes and demonstrate that the outcome of an election is correct irrespective of machines and trust on custody chains of EVMs. Two ways to do this are by adopt ing rigorous and well established strategies for risk-limiting audits or by using a provably end-to-end verifiable cryptographic protocol, or The ECI should explore the possibilities.
8. Finally, the voting system design should be subjected to independent (of the government and ECI) review and the integrity of the election process should be subjected to independent The findings should be made public. In particular, all design details should be transparent and publicly available.

Report may be read here:

References 

1. Poonam Deposition by Poonam Agarwal. https://drive.google.com/drive/ folders/ 1dGsIwgA4HPgootDLdFx8M2Clp4RjDJ3?usp=sharing.
2. Matthew Bernhard, Josh Benaloh, Alex Halderman, Ronald L. Rivest, Peter Y.
3. Ryan, Philip B. Stark, Vanessa Teague, Poorvi L. Vora, and Dan S. Wallach. Public evidence from secret ballots. In Electronic Voting – Second International Joint Conference,

E-Vote-ID 2017, Bregenz, Austria, October 24-27, 2017, Proceedings, pages 84–109, 2017.

3. G. Devasahayam. Deposition by M G Devasahayam.
   https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ 1Ziff77jliZls-gr-dw2Gx0HRxe7xMVOY?usp=sharing.

4. Andy Hacker Lexicon: What Is a Side Channel Attack?
   https://www.wired.com/story/ what-is-side-channel-attack/, 2020. [Online June 21, 2020].

5. Alex Security Problems in India’s Electronic Voting System. https://crcs. seas.harvard.edu/event/alex-halderman-security-problems-india%E2%80%99s-electron- icvoting-system, 2011.
6. Mark Lindeman, Philip B. Stark, and Vincent S. Yates. BRAVO: Ballot-polling risk- limiting audits to verify outcomes. In 2012 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Work- shop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 12), Bellevue, WA, August USENIX As- sociation.
7. Venkatesh Deposition by Venkatesh Nayak.
   https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ 1633FLITVd0d4F-Ra6viROFdkCURfsO4?usp=sharing.

8. Oleksii Oleksenko, Bohdan Trach, Robert Krahn, Mark Silberstein, and Christof Varys: Protecting SGX enclaves from practical side-channel attacks. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18), pages 227–240, Boston, MA, July 2018. USENIX Association.
9. Ronald Rivest. On the notion of software independence in voting systems. Phil- osophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881):3759–3767, 2008.
10. Prasanna Deposition by Prasanna S.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ 14BvRxi0PItAdA3EYXm2qrZSC9rz7pdm?usp=sharing.

11. Anupam Deposition by Anupam Saraph.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10In9T1iL9oTUov1k7ncpWE-1ixMfTF8g?usp=sharing.

12. Subodh Deposition by Subodh Sharma. https://drive.google.com/drive/fold

ers/1u5qjNmqNJM77SK6qlc5utfHmi5jTTBo?usp=sharing.

13. Ashok Vardhan Shetty. Winning Voter Confidence: Fixing India’s Faulty VVPAT-based Audit of EVMs. https://www.thehinducentre.com/publications/policy-watch/ article25607027.ece.
14. Sandeep Deposition by Sandeep Shukla.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YPQHYw5ozmNWkekKlFNyTDfe1V0sseq?usp=sharing.

15. Sandeep Shukla. Editorial: To use or not to? Embedded systems for voting. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., 17(3):58:1–58:2, May 2018.

16. Bappa Deposition by Bappa Sinha.
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZADKm2Ciryu4Gmo m7qO-MMyf8ECSKib?usp=sharing.

17. Philip Stark and David A. Wagner. Evidence-based elections. IEEE Secur. Priv., 10(5):33–41, 2012.
18. Poorvi L. Vora, Alok Choudhary, J. Alex Halderman, Douglas W. Jones, Nasir Memon, Bhagirath Narahari, R. Ramanujam, Ronald L. Rivest, Philip B. Stark, K. V. Subrahmanyam, and Vanessa Teague. Deposition by Poorvi Vora et al. https://drive. com/drive/folders/ 1x00pJHVhR1K7uLCdFuPIsiTDKp4cuQ2?usp=sharing.

Related:

Massive protest in Delhi by Bharat Mukti Morcha with one demand- REMOVE EVMs, SAVE DEMOCRACY

EVMs for urban bodies, paper ballot for panchayat elections: MP Election Commission

EVM security: Whose responsibility is it anyway?

The post Is the Indian EVM & VVPAT System free, fair, fit for elections or can it be manipulated? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per sources quoted in The Wire, the Election Commission of India sent back 6.5 lakh VVPAT machines for being defective. These were from among the newest machine that were purchased in the run up to the 2019 General Elections. They were also subsequently used for Assembly Elections of many states. A total of 17.4 lakh VVPAT machines were ordered in 2018 and it has now been revealed that over 6.5 lakh of these machines turned out to be defective.

These machines were sourced from Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) as well as Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad, among others.

“The defective VVPATs were awaiting repairs following a decision taken by the ECI on October 8, 2021. The Wire has learnt that instructions have not been sent to the union territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and Daman and Diu,” reported The Wire.

When the publication spoke to a member of the opposition, they said that no explanation was given to them about the reason for which the machines were being sent back.

What is VVPAT?

The full form of VVPAT is Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail. It is a machine as important as the EVM or Electronic Voter Machine as it gives instant feedback to the voter with a printed voting slip. Once a vote is registered by the voter, by pressing on a button, the VVPAT machine prints the slips containing the name of the candidate voted for and automatically drops it in a sealed box. It is placed in a transparent box and when it prints the vote, it is displayed to the voter for 7 seconds before it gets dropped in the storage box.

However, VVPATs are not tallied in every polling booth. It has been a long standing demand of political parties that VVPATs be tallied with the final vote count. For now, VVPATS are counted in a random fashion where only some constituency’s votes are tallied with VVPAT slips.

VVPAT verification is also done when there are allegations of fraud or miscalculation of votes.

In case of discrepancy between number of votes counted by EVM and number of votes recorded by VVPAT, the latter is upheld.

In the 2019 general elections at least 8 cases of mismatch between EVM and VVPAT votes were found in Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya and Andhra Pradesh.

VVPAT slips were hurriedly destroyed in 2019

The revelation of these defective VVPATs brings into question why the ECI destroyed voter slips recorded by the VVPATS merely within 4 months of the 2019 general elections, in violation of the law.

The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, under rule 94 (b) states that packets referred to in Rule 93(1) shall be retained for a period of one year and shall thereafter be destroyed and those packets containing the counterfoils of used ballot papers shall not be destroyed except with the previous approval of the Election Commission.

The packets referred to in Rule 93(1) include:

               (a) The packets of unused ballot papers with counterfoils attached thereto;

(b) The packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected;

(c) The packets of the counterfoils of used ballot papers;

(d) The packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll or, as the case may be, the list maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 152; and

²[(dd) the packets containing registers of voters in form 17-A;]

(e) The packets of the declarations by electors and the attestation of their signatures; (emphasis provided)

This means it is mandatory for the Election Commission to retain used ballot papers (among others) for at least a year. Then why were these ballot papers recorded by VVPATS in the 2019 general election destroyed within 4 months? The Quint had earlier both found and exposed this information that the VVPAT slips were destroyed through an RTI three years ago. Through the RTI it was found that the VVPAT slips were destroyed on the basis of express orders issued by the ECI. The publication also found that after VVPATS were assigned for the elections, they were checked and maintained by employees of a private company which left them vulnerable to be tampered with.

 Supreme Court petition

A plea was filed by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms last week seeking a declaration that it is the fundamental right of every voter to verify that their vote has been ‘recorded as cast’ and ‘counted as recorded’, reported LiveLaw. The plea pointed towards a vacuum in law as there is no procedure for the voter to verify that the vote has been ‘counted as recorded’ since there is no procedure to match the EVM voted with VVPATs. This refers to the randomly selected constituencies where such cross checking is done while other constituencies rely upon just EVM votes.

The petition states that a paper trial is a must and indispensable element of free and fair elections.

In 2019 a bench led by then CJI SA Bobade had dismissed a plea filed by Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief N. Chandrababu Naidu and 21 other parties seeking counting of at least 50% of VVPAT slips.

Civil servants speak

The Wire spoke to a former Chief Election Commissioner as well as another former civil servant to get their view on VVPAT counting. The former CEC said, “All VVPAT slips can be counted in a matter of seconds if they decide to use currency counting machines. These machines can be reprogrammed or the paper size can be enlarged to fit the machine. The technology is available. All that is required is the will.”

A former civil servant and a member of the Citizens Commission on Elections, M.G. Devasahayam, says, “In Germany, they went back to the paper ballot system because the EVM/VVPAT method was found to be ‘unconstitutional’ by their Supreme Court.”

M.G. Devasahayam, a former Army and IAS officer wrote in The Wire how transparent the paper ballot system was, since the vote was cast manually by stamping a paper and counting was done in the presence of the Returning Officer (RO) and candidates’ agents. He pointed out that in Germany EVMs were declared unconstitutional compelling the whole of Europe to go back to paper ballots and most of the USA also followed suit.

Citizens’ Commission on Elections

In January 2021, the Citizens’ Commission on Elections had come out with a report stating that EVMs cannot be assumed to be tamper proof. The CCE is chaired by former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur and comprises former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, former Madras High Court judge Hari Paranthaman, economist Arun Kumar, activist John Dayal, senior journalist Pamela Philipose, IIT-Delhi professor Subhashis Banerjee and former IAS officer Sundar Burra.

Many experts had deposed before the CCE as well as members of the technical committee of the ECI. The CCE’s report concluded that due to lack of End-to-End (E2E) verifiability, the EVM/VVPAT system is not verifiable and therefore unfit for democratic elections. The report also pointed out that the EVM design is not open for public technical audit which makes it all the more opaque.

Is EVM-VVPAT combination fool proof?

Kannan Gopinathan, the computer scientist turned civil servant (who resigned from services), who was Returning Officer in the 2019 general elections questioned the EVM-VVPAT system. In his thesis he writes, “If EVM-VVPATs are stand-alone machines not connected to any external device, as repeatedly claimed by the Election Commission of India (ECI), how does the VVPAT machine print the name and symbol of the chosen candidate? When and how are the names and symbols of the candidates uploaded on to the VVPAT? Does this affect the technical, physical and procedural security claims of our electronic voting process?”

These questions have been left unanswered till date by the ECI and consequently the transparency of voting and elections is at a questionable precipice.

It is not clear what defective VVPATS mean. Does it mean these VVPATS were unable to display the vote cast by the citizen? Does it mean these VVPATs were unable to record these votes as counted? Does it mean that if cross checked with the EVM votes, these VVPATS fell short, despite them having precedence over EVMs in cases of dispute? All these questions also remain unanswered.

Related:

Himanta Biswa Sarma targets poll bound Karnataka, spreads communally divisive ideology, distorts history, attacks Congress

If EC does not ensure free and fair poll, it guarantees breakdown of rule of law: SC

India ‘One of the Worst Autocratisers in the Last 10 Years,’ Says 2023 V-Dem Report

Independence of elections was envisaged as fundamental right by Constitution makers

Election Commissioner to be appointed on advise of PM, leader of opposition and CJI: SC

The post What do 6.5 lakh defective VVPATs say about India’s election process? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reportedly refused an urgent hearing to a petition by Rakesh Kumar, an activist from Uttar Pradesh, seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for mandatory verification of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips at more than five polling stations in every constituency ahead of the counting of votes in assembly elections to five states.

The petition was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana “for urgent listing”. According to a report in Hindustan Times, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioner, told the court, “Petition was seeking implementation of a 2019 Supreme Court judgement in the N Chandrababu Naidu v Union of India case, in which the court had directed the poll watchdog to ensure mandatory verification of VVPAT slips at five randomly selected polling stations.” 

In its 2019 judgement, the SC had said, “The number of EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) that would now be subject to verification so far as VVPAT paper trail is concerned would be 5 per assembly constituency or assembly segment in a Parliamentary constituency…” The court allowed the petitioner to serve a copy of the plea to the commission and posted the matter for Wednesday. The bench also comprising justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli, on Tuesday said, “We will not interfere if the EC is following the judgement (of 2019).”

Appearing for the ECI, senior advocate Maninder Singh, informed the court that the poll overseer was following the April 2019 judgement, and the “ECI maintained no change can be made now as counting teams have been dispatched to the five states of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Goa, and Manipur, where elections were held.” According to the petitioner’s lawyer, Raj Kumar, a new prayer was being prepared to increase the verification from five to 25 polling stations for better transparency, as “each polling station has more than one polling booth. They are conducting verification only in one booth.”

The bench said since it is a new prayer, it has to consider whether to issue notice and seek ECI’s response and “we need not hear tomorrow. We can consider it some other day.” 

Meanwhile Kumar urged the court that verification of VVPATs should be done during the first and second rounds of polling and not towards the end reported HT, to which the bench said it is expected that polling agents of each political party should stay till the end of counting as “there is a change in trends till the end. If an agent does not stay till the end, what can we do” adding, “whatever judgement is there, they (ECI) are following it. We need not interfere.”

Related:

EC suspends 3 in UP, puts Delhi, Bihar officials in charge on Counting Day

Two Assembly Election Exit Polls paint dire picture for BJP

Who’s afraid of the exit polls, anyway?

The post SC refuses urgent hearing on plea for enhanced VVPAT verification appeared first on SabrangIndia.