Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The suggestions were that after the process of casting of each individual poll, the Electronic Voting Machine would memorize it and one dummy printed ballot paper bearing the 'actual marked (casted) symbol by the particular voter' will be issued to the voter as a 'receipt', which will then be verified and if the voter is satisfied that his vote has been cast in the machine to his chosen candidate rightly, then the dummy ballot (receipt) would be dropped by him into the Ballot box; if the dummy ballot is erroneous, the voter might raise complaint against the machine and such machine, then, would have to be declared as 'out of service' and the polling process to be cancelled since beginning.

Learned counsel cites the judgment of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Election Commission of India reported at (2013) 10 SCC 500, inter alia, to indicate the reform introduced by the Supreme Court regarding the system of maintaining paper trails for votes cast on EVMs.

Learned counsel further cites N. Chandrababu Naidu and others Vs. Union of India and another reported at 2019 15 SCC 377, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering guideline 16.6 of the Manual Electronic Voting Machine and VVPAT, arrived at the conclusion that the number of EVMs in respect of which VVPAT paper slips were to be subjected to physical scrutiny be increased from 1 to

Learned counsel for the respondents controverts such submission and relies on the reply given by the Election Commission of India to the petitioner's representation.

A perusal of the report of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra) indicates that the same pertains to the concept of 'paper trail' being introduced in respect of electronic voting machines for elections, to ensure further transparency in the system.

In N. Chandrababu (supra), the Supreme Court went one step further and brought about a modification in Rule 16.6 of the Manual on Electronic Voting Machine and VVPAT by increasing the number of paper slips, for being subjected to random physical scrutiny, to five from one.

Sufficient grounds have not been made out by the petitioner for further increasing such number, keeping in mind the factors which were considered by the Supreme Court as well as the consequent difficulties of logistics and unnecessary expenditure which would necessarily be involved in case of such increase.

That apart, Rule 49 MA of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provide a sufficient safety net for taking care of inaccuracies and errors which might crop up in electronic voting machines. Rather akin to the suggestion of the petitioner, it is specifically provided in Sub-Rule 1 thereof that if an elector alleges that the paper slip generated by the printer has shown the name or symbol of a candidate other than the one he voted for, the presiding officer shall obtain a written declaration from the elector and make a second entry related to that elector in Form 17A as well as permit the elector to record a test vote in the voting machine in his presence and in the presence of the candidates/polling agents, attend the poling station at the relevant juncture and observe the paper slip generated by the printer. Sub-Rule 3 provides that if the voter's allegation is found to be proved, the presiding officer would immediately report to the returning officer and stop further recording of votes in such defective voting machine and proceed as per direction that may be given by the returning officer.