The judgment of the Supreme Court in relation to the Voting Machine (EVM) seems to be the only one that can be given within the present limitations rather than comprehensively addressing the arguments raised. Since the voting process has already begun, a drastic check was impractical . The argument of the Election Commission also emphasized this impracticability. It is impossible at this stage to go back to paper ballot as requested by the petitioners. Equally impractical is the requirement to count the entire VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail). Dismissing these pleas, Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Dipankar Dutta pointed out that there was no evidence of any irreparable flaws in the current verification system. The voting machine cannot be doubted by mere speculation. This is not the first time the court has ruled that concerns about voting machines are misplaced. But the fact is that on each such occasion, the doubts have increased. The court rejected the demands raised in one case that 50 pr cent VVPAT should be checked and in another that 100 percent should be checked. This time, the court considered the security systems of the votes and could not find any fault in it.
Even acknowledging the practical limitations, even this court decision will not finally dispel people's doubts. Pointing out the credibility of the Election Commission, the court said that there is no need to put extra burden on the shoulders of the Commission. While giving credit to the Commission for conducting free and fair elections for 70 years, the court however failed to recognise the damage done to the credibility of the commission recently. It is now that the structure of the 70-year-old commission has been fundamentally altered: the crucial role that the judiciary had in the appointment of the Commission has ceased to exist now. In effect, the Commission became a subsidiary arm of the government. The court dismissed the CSDS-Lok Niti Survey report that the majority of the people do not trust the voting machine as a mere private report. And it is not clear on what evidence the court noted in its judgment that there is an 'organised movement to undermine and weaken the country's progress'. Not even the evidence of a 'private report' has been pointed out in its support. Similarly, there is also an inconsistency in the idea of having a team of engineers from the company that manufactured the micro-controller to check the stored data (burnt memory) in the micro-controller. The question is whether it is the manufacturer who has to check if the computer system is faulty. Won't it be their effort to establish that their product is not faulty? Even if the system is error-free, such illogical 'checks' will only increase the suspicion of the people.
The court held the view that the issue is whether the voter's right to know that his vote has been correctly recorded has been fulfilled. In fact, the voting system can be declared correct only when three things are fulfilled. It is only one of them that the vote cast by the voter has been recorded for the candidate he intended. (But if it comes to it that the VVPAT, which ensures this, does not need to be counted in full, even this assurance has no value). In addition to ensuring that the voter's vote is recorded for the intended candidate, it is also important to ensure that what is eventually counted is what has been recorded. Experts say that with the addition of the VVPAT machine, none of this is certain. There are experts who believe that the result can be influenced by changing the data in the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) without changing the VVPAT program. The court does not say that the SLU should be inspected, but only that it should be kept sealed. What the judiciary should focus on is making the Election Commission and the election system error-proof.
Perhaps it was the Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) - which had filed a petition in the vote-rigging case - that was meant in the comments in Justice Dipankar Dutta's judgment. There is also an innuendo in this remark that approaching the court is an insult to democratic institutions. It is unfortunate that litigants who approach the court on a matter of grave importance are insulted, even if obliquely. The judge who cast aspersions on the association which filed the petition, should also remember that the Supreme Court has a history of standing hundred per cent with the ADR's argument in the petition demanding that candidates should declare their assets and criminal background and thus defeated the attempts of the then government to subvert that move. ADR is also among those who questioned the electoral bond, which was eventually ruled illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The credibility of the poll is the credibility of the election. And that forms the credibility of democracy. It is the responsibility of the Election Commission to perform the role of guaranteeing that credibility. The jury is still out on the question whether the court succeeded in ensuring that.