We need to ask as to why there was no ruckus about the deployment of voting machines after the election to the Delhi Assembly in February 2015. Kejriwal's AAP had won a mind-boggling 67 of the 70 seats
The controversy raised by Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal about the credibility of electronic voting machines (EVMs) following the massive victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the recently held Uttar Pradesh Assembly election has once again raised the question as to whether these machines are tamper-proof. These doubts and accusations are not new. They had been raised over the last decade by many political parties including the BJP, but some significant developments in recent years have weakened the arguments against the deployment of these voting machines.
Among them are: Successful deployment of these machines in several national elections during this period without any serious challenge to their efficacy and credibility; the remarkable end to booth-capturing after these machines were introduced; judicial pronouncements that do not support a return to paper ballots, but encourage introduction of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) to put an end to all controversies; and the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) determined efforts to introduce the paper trail in national elections at the earliest.
But, before we address the substantive issues vis-à-vis voting machines, we also need to ask why there was no ruckus about deployment of voting machines after the election to the Delhi Assembly in February 2015. In that election, Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party won a mind-boggling 67 of the 70 seats in the Assembly. The BJP bagged the remaining three. Kejriwal’s party secured 54.34 per cent of the votes, but 95.71 per cent of the seats, whereas the BJP secured 32.19 per cent of the votes but just four per cent of the seats. These results showed a complete disjunction between vote-share and seat-share and would surely have merited a protest, because one rarely sees such a one-sided election. But, strangely, there were no Doubting Thomases at that time! Therefore, those who feel nothing was amiss in Delhi in 2015 have a rather weak case vis-à-vis Uttar Pradesh 2017.
The ECI thought of a more efficient method of voting via EVMs way back in the 1980s because of rampant booth-capturing, violence and destruction of ballot papers etc in elections. The commission first thought of this revolutionary idea when Sl Shakdhar was the Chief Election Commissioner and KGanesan, the Secretary of the ECI. They decided to take the risk of introducing the machines on an experimental basis, even though the election law did not provide for the use of machines to record votes. Some polling booths in Parur Assembly constituency in Kerala were chosen for the experiment in 1982.
This legal infirmity was corrected with an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in March 1989. Prior to this amendment, the election law only spoke of ballot papers. Consequent to this amendment, Section 61A incorporated the idea of a voting machine and explained that “voting machine” means any machine or apparatus, whether operated electronically or otherwise, used for giving or recording of votes; and any reference to a ballot box or ballot paper in this Act or the rules made there under shall, save as otherwise provided, be construed as including a reference to such voting machine wherever such voting machine is used at any election.
Following controversies and accusations that EVMs could be manipulated, the election Commission agreed in principle in 2010 to introduce the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). This results in the generation of a paper slip bearing the name and symbol of the candidate for whom the vote is cast, apart from the recording of the vote in the control unit in the machine. This system ensures greater transparency in that it enables the voter to see that his or her vote has gone to the candidate of his or her choice.
It also provides an alternate system to count the votes polled, in case of a dispute. In other words, one need not rely wholly on the numbers dished out by the control unit in the machine. A printer is attached to the balloting unit and kept in the voting compartment. It is visible to the voter for seven seconds through a transparent window. The Election Commission used VVPAT for the first time in a by- election in Nagaland in 2013.
The use of EVMs has been challenged before many High Courts and even before the Supreme Court in recent years. But the judiciary is not convinced that the machines can be manipulated. On the other hand, many High Courts have given the EVMs the thumbs-up. The ECI has summed up some of the judiciary observations on its website. For example, the Karnataka High Court has said this invention was undoubtedly “a great achievement... and a national pride”. The Madras High Court ruled out any possibility of tampering of the machines. It said the EVMs cannot be compared to personal computers. The programming of computers had no bearing with the EVMs. The Delhi High Court asked the ECI to consult all parties and develop a VVPAT system that would put a final end to all doubt.
The Supreme Court has also directed ECI to introduce VVPAT in phases and asked the Government to provide funds for the purpose. The commission is keen to introduce the paper trail in all constituencies during the next lok Sabha election in 2019. It has asked the Government to allocate Rs 3,174 crore for the purpose. The commission told the Supreme Court recently that it could get the required number of VVPAT units manufactured in 30 months from the date of sanction of funds.
While the ECI has reaffirmed its complete faith in the “infallibility” of the EVMs, it has also initiated steps to introduce the paper trail as directed by the apex court. In the last round of elections to five State Assemblies in February-March 2017, the ECI deployed 52,000 VVPATs. In Goa, for instance, it deployed the paper trail in all the 40 State Assembly constituencies.
Given these firm judicial pronouncements and the move towards full deployment of VVPAT — which will ensure that the machine is credible — the arguments against EVMs must end. The paper trail will bring in much needed transparency and also offer a fall-back in case of disputes. let us not go back to the era of paper ballots and booth-capturing!
(The writer is Chairman, Prasar Bharati. Views expressed here are personal)