Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court of India directed the Election Commission to engage in cross-verification of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails in at least 30% of all the polling stations in every constituency. The petition seeking justice in this matter was filed by three persons—former civil servant Mr MG Devasahayam, former IFS officer Mr Kalarickal Pranchu Fabian and retired bank officer Mr Thomas Franco Rajendra Dev, represented by Adv. Prasanna.
The Advocate contended that a very meagre per cent to the tune of just one per cent in every polling station is taken into account for such cross verification. This is, prima facie, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and irrational, as it violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Subsequently, he relied on Subramaniam Swamy Vs. ECI, wherein the transparency, upholding of democratic principles and voter confidence, structural due process with respect to cross verification of VVPATs counting with the EVM counting were prominently discussed. The Court had directed the EC to conduct cross-verification both to ascertain and deter technological mischiefs.
The petitioners had to approach the Supreme Court on account of the EC conducting cross-verification between EVM counts and VVPAT counts, only in 1% of all the polling stations in every constituency. They reiterated that the percentage chosen for cross-verification contravenes the constitutional provisions and the democratic principles, therefore, transparency is demanded to uphold the integrity and confidence of the voters. The petitioners clarified that they did not intend to delegitimize any election held so far but were concerned about the safety of the technology adopted, accountability for discrepancies and transparency in the election process which attributes significance to the VVPATs.
Therefore, they sought direction from the Court to have the Returning Officers mandatorily order hand-writing of all the VVPAT slips of polling stations wherein the victory was marginal or less than 3%In addition to the above, the same process is sought where there are discrepancies between the EVM count total and hand-counting total on the 5% sample EVMs taken together exceeds 1%.
86540
103860
630
114
59824