Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

59. In the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, 20,687 VVPAT slips were physically counted, and except in one case, no discrepancy or mismatch was noticed.

60. The discrepancy during mandatory verification of VVPAT slips happened in polling station No. 63, Mydukur Assembly Constituency, Andhra Pradesh during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections. On verification, it was found that the discrepancy had arisen on account of failure of the presiding officer to delete the mock poll data.24 While it is not possible to rule out human errors, paragraph 14.5 of Chapter 14 of the Manual on EVM and VVPATs deals with such situations and lays down the protocol which is to be followed.

70. VVPAT slip is made of a 9.9 cm x 5.6 cm thermal paper coated with chemical to ensure print retention for about 5 years. It is very soft and sticky, which makes the counting process tedious and slow. The counting process is undertaken through the following steps: the verification of unique ID of the VVPAT, opening of the VVPAT drop box, taking out the paper slips, counting the total number of slips, matching the number of slips with the total votes polled as per Form 17C,  segregation of candidate-wise VVPAT slips, making candidate-wise bundles of 25 slips and counting of bundles and leftover slips. There are instances of recounting and reverification of the slips till the candidate- wise tallying is done. Thus, the counting process, it is stated, takes about five hours. The counting is done by a team of three officers under CCTV coverage and under direct supervision of the supervising officer and the ECI observer of the constituency. Candidates/agents can remain present. We are not inclined to modify the aforesaid directions to increase the number of VVPAT undergoing slip count for several reasons. First, it will increase the time for counting and delay declaration of results. The manpower required would have to be doubled. Manual counting is prone to human errors and may lead to deliberate mischief. Manual intervention in counting can also create multiple charges of manipulation of results. Further, the data and the results do not indicate any need to increase the number of VVPAT units subjected to manual counting.

17. We now address the second facet of the argument based on the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) – the voter’s right to know that his/her vote, as recorded, has been counted. To deal with this contention, a question comes to my mind – did this right not exist when the “paper ballot system”, which the petitioning association wishes to be reverted to, was in vogue? Then, voters would simply drop their paper ballots into a box, for it to be safely ferried away to the counting stations, whereafter the same were Election Rules counted by election officials far away from the voter’s scrutiny, with no way of knowing whether the vote cast by the voter was indeed counted or had not fallen victim to human error and missed from being counted. In the present far more technologically advanced system of the EVM – VVPAT, every voter who enters the polling booth has his/her name recorded, along with an affixation of signature in the Register of Voters maintained by the Presiding Officer, as provided by Form 17A of the Election Rules. Thereafter, the voter presses the desired button on the ballot unit to cast his/her vote, sees a visual confirmation of the same on the transparent VVPAT screen and hears a loud beep. At the end of the voting process, the Presiding Officer is required to record in Form 17C, not just the total number of voters as per the Register of Voters, but also the total number of votes recorded per voting machine as well as those staying away from the voting process despite affixing signature on the register. The total votes polled as per Form 17C is then again tallied with the total votes recorded by the control unit. Rule 56D(4) also provides that if there is any mismatch between these two totals, the printed VVPAT slips of the polling station would be counted. Furthermore, if a voter is aggrieved by a mismatch in the candidate voted for in the ballot unit vis-a-vis that recorded in the VVAPT, Rule 49M allows the voter to approach the Presiding Officer. Upon the conclusion of polling, there exists yet another remedy under Rule 56-D, for a candidate to apply for a count of the VVPAT slips, should any discrepancy be suspected. Thus, it is manifest that there is in place a stringent system of checks and balances, to prevent any possibility of a miscount of votes, and for the voter to know that his/her vote has been counted. There can be no doubt that such a system, which is distinctly more satisfactory compared to the system of the yester-years, suitably satisfies the voter’s right under Article 19(1)(a) to know that his/her vote has been counted as recorded.