Author: A Surya Prakash
It’s not fair to impose electronic voting machines as a substitute for paper ballots because there’s no way voters can verify which way their vote went.
The Election Commission may have won the legal battle vis-à-vis the efficacy of electronic voting machines in view of the recent judgement of the Delhi High Court, but it has a lot of work to do if it wishes to remove the prevailing scepticism about these machines.
Though Justice AK Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, who heard Mr Subramanian Swamy’s petition, said they could not issue a mandamus directing the Election Commission to introduce the system of paper trail, they had advised it to take note of the apprehensions that EVMs may be vulnerable to fraud and that there could be security issues.
The issue of vulnerability of electronic voting machines to fraud gained prominence two years ago when several international experts who had campaigned against EVMs in Europe and the US visited India and shared their experiences with Indian activists.
Among these experts was Mr Rop Gonggrijp, a computer hacker from the Netherlands, who successfully campaigned against the use of EVMs in his country, and Mr Till Jaeger, the attorney, who succeeded in getting the German Federal Constitutional Court to prohibit the use of these machines. Thereafter, this campaign gained ground when Mr Hari Prasad, an Indian activist, demonstrated how EVMs could be hacked. Mr Subramanian Swamy petitioned the Delhi High Court following these developments.
The central argument of Mr Gonggrijp, Mr Hari Prasad and others is that transparency is hit when the vote-count happens inside a machine and there is no way in which the result can be cross-checked. This view found acceptance in the German Federal Constitutional Court which emphasised that all essential steps in an election should be open to public scrutiny.
Mr Swamy’s petition also stressed the lack of transparency caused by EVMs. He, therefore, argued that the Election Commission device a paper trail that provides proof to the voter that the vote has been registered as per his or her wish.
In their judgement, Justice AK Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw opined that the Election Commission had a huge responsibility of conducting elections in the country with 73 crore voters.
In such a situation, the use of paper ballots is cumbersome whereas the use of an electronic system instead of paper ballots is a welcome change “provided it is not fraught with frailties and other possible dangers or shortcomings thereof are duly taken care of”. The court said that for an election to be free and fair, the following international standards have to be met:
Individuals have to be accurately identified as eligible voters who have not already voted;
Voters are allowed only one anonymous ballot each, which they can mark in privacy;
The ballot box is secure, observed and, during elections, only able to have votes added to it by voters: Votes cannot be removed;
When the election ends, the ballot box is opened and counted in the presence of observers from all competing parties. The counting process cannot reveal how individual voters cast their ballots;
If the results are in doubt, the ballots can be checked and counted again by a different set of people/machines;
As far as the individual voter is concerned, voters must be assured that the candidate they casts their vote for actually gets that vote.
Those who oppose electronic voting machines have serious doubts as to whether the EVMs meet these standards. For example, the sceptics argue that a credible and fool-proof method to count the votes polled by each candidate does not exist. Nor is it possible, in case of doubt, to check and count the ballots yet again because with EVMs there is no mechanism to do a fresh count.
Finally, the sixth requirement is that the individual voter “must be assured that the candidate he casts his vote for, actually gets the vote”. This is possible when paper ballots are used. But when EVMs are deployed, the voter is not sure whether his vote has been correctly registered.
Therefore, the sixth principle that ensures free and fair elections — namely that the voter feels assured that the candidate of his choice has indeed got his vote — is not guaranteed. That is why the anti-EVM brigade has been insisting on a paper trail which gives the voter the satisfaction of knowing that the machine has registered his vote correctly.
Mr Subramanian Swamy argued before the court that only a paper trail would give voters the necessary guarantee that the election is free and fair. He told the court that the paper trail, in the form of a receipt, would provide satisfaction to the voter that the machine has correctly recorded the vote. In the absence of such a paper trail, “the system cannot be treated as amounting to conducting free and fair elections, more so, when there is a possibility of the machine being skewed or it is vulnerable to fraud”.
The Delhi High Court accepted the contention that “transparency is essential in an election process”. Unless every stake-holder can see that the process is being conducted correctly and the results are being accurately aggregated, “it is difficult to have confidence in the results and the outcome”. On its part the Election Commission told the court that that if a paper trail is introduced and a receipt is given, confidentiality is lost.
That would negate the very essence of free and fair elections. Given these competing ideas, the court observed that the challenge before it was “to reconcile the competing requirements of transparency of the process and the secrecy of the vote”.
However, in its final analysis, the court said it could not issue a mandamus directing the Election Commission to introduce the system of paper trail. But, it felt that some of the averments of Mr Swamy — like when he says that EVMs may be vulnerable to frauds — deserve attention, as also the contention that there may be security issues as well when EVMs are deployed.
The court said there was need for “wide consultation” and “ample and meaningful opportunity” should be given to all stake holders in order to achieve sufficient understanding of both the issues and the technology, it said.
It can only be hoped that the Election Commission will pay heed to the court’s opinion in this regard and look for options which will inject greater transparency into the system of electronic voting, which ensuring confidentiality of the vote.

A SURYA PRAKASH

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51015-need-for-a-paper-trail.html