The Supreme Court of India has urged the Union government to consider the implementation of totaliser machines in the vote-counting process for Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). This move aims to maintain the confidentiality of voting patterns and protect voters at individual polling stations from potential identification and subsequent victimization.
A judicial panel, including Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, reviewed a petition advocating for the use of totalisers. These machines have the capability to amalgamate votes from multiple EVMs before results are disclosed, thereby obscuring the voting outcomes from individual polling stations.
Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, “We are interested in understanding the possible challenges and any adverse effects that might arise from introducing such a system. The Election Commission should prepare an appropriate proposal to present to the Union of India, which will then make a decision on the matter.”
In court, Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the Election Commission of India (ECI), expressed agreement with the principle of safeguarding voter anonymity. However, he pointed out practical challenges, such as the need for legislative amendments and the current process that allows candidates to verify results using Form 17C, which records votes at each polling station.
Naidu explained that the totaliser’s aggregation of votes from several booths might hinder the current booth-wise verification process. He also highlighted that while the ECI had previously endorsed the idea, an expert committee and a significant number of political parties opposed it.
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, appearing for petitioner Yogesh Gupta, cited a 2018 ECI statement to the Supreme Court advocating for the introduction of totalisers. Upadhyay argued that revealing booth-specific voting patterns could lead to voter intimidation and violence, suggesting that totalisers could connect and aggregate results from 14 EVMs, thus ensuring voter anonymity.
Chief Justice Kant observed that the ECI’s current stance revolved around implementation difficulties rather than fundamental opposition. Naidu responded by stating that the primary concerns were political opposition and the necessary legal changes for implementation.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan suggested that the current legal framework could allow for the introduction of totalisers through existing rules under the Representation of the People Act. He emphasized that the introduction of totalisers could enhance voter protection instead of catering to political parties’ demand for booth-wise data.
Justice Bagchi referred to Rule 59A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which allows for aggregated vote counting in specific circumstances to protect voter anonymity. The petitioners argued this principle could be extended to EVMs.
While Naidu raised concerns about the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) and cross-verification, Justice Bagchi clarified that the consideration of totalisation was not necessarily intended to replace the existing system but could serve as an exceptional mechanism in cases of potential voter victimization.
The Supreme Court has requested the Union government to assess whether amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules could facilitate the use of totalisers and specifically evaluate Rule 59A and the Law Commission’s recommendations in its 255th Report.
