The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a public interest litigation (PIL) which questioned the use of electronic voting machines (EVM) in Lok Sabha elections 2019.

The PIL filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma also sought cancellation of elections.

A Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman heard the PIL ."What are you asking for Mr Sharma? You want us to set aside the entire Lok Sabha elections?" said Justice Nariman refusing to interfere with the petition, terming it "devoid of merits".

In his petition, Sharma, citing provisions under 61 A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, contended that the Election Commission should not have replaced ballot papers with EVMs since the RPA specifically mentions ballot paper.

The apex court had earlier declined an urgent hearing to his plea on June 17.&nbsp;

The opposition has alleged irregularities in the working of electronic voting machine (EVM) during the recently concluded Lok Sabha polls. However, maintaining that no substance was found in past complaints regarding the EVM, the Election Commission has asserted that they are tamper-proof and cannot be hacked.

In May, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had expressed concern over the "needless controversy" created by the Opposition over EVMs. 
 
(With inputs from agencies) 
 
 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a public interest litigation (PIL) which questioned the use of electronic voting machines (EVM) in Lok Sabha elections 2019.

The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a public interest litigation (PIL) which questioned the use of electronic voting machines (EVM) in Lok Sabha elections 2019. The PIL filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma also sought cancellation of elections. A Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman heard the PIL ."What are you asking for Mr Sharma? You want us to set aside the entire Lok Sabha elections?" said Justice Nariman refusing to interfere with the petition, terming it "devoid of merits". In his petition, Sharma, citing provisions under 61 A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, contended that the Election Commission should not have replaced ballot papers with EVMs since the RPA specifically mentions ballot paper. The apex court had earlier declined an urgent hearing to his plea on June 17. The opposition has alleged irregularities in the working of electronic voting machine (EVM) during the recently concluded Lok Sabha polls. However, maintaining that no substance was found in past complaints regarding the EVM, the Election Commission has asserted that they are tamper-proof and cannot be hacked. In May, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had expressed concern over the "needless controversy" created by the Opposition over EVMs. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking cancellation of Lok Sabha elections 2019

The general elections 2019 are in full swing. It is hardly surprising that the controversy over the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) is also at its peak.&nbsp;

There is a well-documented history of EVM controversy. After all, every political party has raised doubts about the machines when in opposition. But when they come to power through the same machines, doubts are not put to rest. Only we have new accusers and the controversy continues.&nbsp; 
 
In 2011, the Election Commission (EC) got a rare opportunity to test the relative strength of EVMs and ballot papers. It was to conduct bypolls in 12 seats of Andhra Pradesh assembly. These seats had fallen vacant in the wake of mass resignations in the heat of the Telangana agitation.  Polls were conducted in half the constituencies using ballot papers because of a clever ploy.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Chandrababu Naidu ensured that the number of candidates in a number of constituencies was more than 64 – which is the maximum limit the EVMs could handle. And what was the conclusion? While the results from the machines came out in four hours, the paper ballots took over forty hours. Adding to that, in the seats where polls were conducted with ballot papers, thousands of invalid votes were found. The results from both the systems were exactly the same.&nbsp;

This debate should have ended way back in 2010 when the Commission called an all-party meeting to understand concerns of the political parties on the matter. It was unanimously recommended that VVPATs be adopted as the final remedy, and we promptly accepted it. The two factories which manufacture EVMs were asked to develop VVPATs. An independent committee of professors of five different IITs was requested to monitor every aspect of the process. &nbsp;

&nbsp;A series of trials were held, followed by two full-day election simulations in five cities with varying climatic conditions – namely Cherrapunji, Delhi, Jaisalmer, Leh, Thiruvananthapuram, in July 2011 and again in 2012 in the same month. Only after the VVPATs passed all the rigorous tests of technology and climatic endurance, were they deployed successfully in 20,000 polling booths. As manufacturing progressed, all constituencies were equipped with VVPATs.&nbsp;

In 2013, the Supreme Court lauded the Commission’s decision and directed the government to release adequate funds so that VVPATs can be procured for use in all the booths in the 2019 elections. As the machines kept coming in, these were randomly deployed. Since 2017, all assembly elections are held with EVMs which are attached with VVPATs. As per the present norms, slips generated by one VVPAT in each assembly constituency are counted. Of the 1,500 machines thus counted, not a single mismatch has been found. &nbsp;

The Opposition parties have demanded that half of the total slips should be cross-checked. As many as &nbsp;23 Opposition parties have also moved the Apex Court demanding the same. A group of 73 retired bureaucrats and diplomats have written to the EC on the matter, demanding an appropriate audit of votes cast in the 2019 election. To quote the central premise of the letter, “The real issue today is not about EVMs vs paper ballots, rather it is about EVMs with perfunctory VVPAT audits vs. EVMs with proper VVPAT audit.”&nbsp;

The letter highlighted the urgent need for a statistically sound sample size “With 99.9 per cent reliability, in a suitably defined population.” The &nbsp;EC sought the advice of the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, on an appropriate sample size that would ensure 99.99 per cent public satisfaction. The much-awaited report has finally been submitted to the EC according to the latest reports and is being examined.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, when the case came up before SC, the Chief Justice asked the Election Commission why the sample size should not be increased. EC has apparently submitted that the experts of ISI have endorsed the current sample of one VVPAT per assembly constituency. On the other hand, the sample size proposed by the political parties would delay the results by six days. All eyes are now on the SC where the case would come up next week. &nbsp; 
 
I would also like to venture a more out of the box alternative. &nbsp;

Let the top two runners up in the constituency choose any two VVPAT machines that they would like to be counted as they have the highest stake in the results. An appropriate analogy is that of the game of cricket in which two referrals are allowed for each team. This is called the Decision Review System, and ever since its introduction, the violent disputes about the controversial decisions taken by the umpire have disappeared. This could serve to do away with a large random sample being demanded at present, as only four machines per assembly would have to be counted to ensure public faith in the system.&nbsp;

EVMs, equipped with VVPATs, are the most dependable arrangement. With only a few weeks to go for the counting, the Commission or the Supreme Court must clinch the debate without any further delay. &nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
&nbsp;

The general elections 2019 are in full swing. It is hardly surprising that the controversy over the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) is also at its peak.

The general elections 2019 are in full swing. It is hardly surprising that the controversy over the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) is also at its peak. There is a well-documented history of EVM controversy. After all, every political party has raised doubts about the machines when in opposition. But when they come to power through the same machines, doubts are not put to rest. Only we have new accusers and the controversy continues. In 2011, the Election Commission (EC) got a rare opportunity to test the relative strength of EVMs and ballot papers. It was to conduct bypolls in 12 seats of Andhra Pradesh assembly. These seats had fallen vacant in the wake of mass resignations in the heat of the Telangana agitation.  Polls were conducted in half the constituencies using ballot papers because of a clever ploy. Chandrababu Naidu ensured that the number of candidates in a number of constituencies was more than 64 – which is the maximum limit the EVMs could handle. And what was the conclusion? While the results from the machines came out in four hours, the paper ballots took over forty hours. Adding to that, in the seats where polls were conducted with ballot papers, thousands of invalid votes were found. The results from both the systems were exactly the same. This debate should have ended way back in 2010 when the Commission called an all-party meeting to understand concerns of the political parties on the matter. It was unanimously recommended that VVPATs be adopted as the final remedy, and we promptly accepted it. The two factories which manufacture EVMs were asked to develop VVPATs. An independent committee of professors of five different IITs was requested to monitor every aspect of the process. A series of trials were held, followed by two full-day election simulations in five cities with varying climatic conditions – namely Cherrapunji, Delhi, Jaisalmer, Leh, Thiruvananthapuram, in July 2011 and again in 2012 in the same month. Only after the VVPATs passed all the rigorous tests of technology and climatic endurance, were they deployed successfully in 20,000 polling booths. As manufacturing progressed, all constituencies were equipped with VVPATs. In 2013, the Supreme Court lauded the Commission’s decision and directed the government to release adequate funds so that VVPATs can be procured for use in all the booths in the 2019 elections. As the machines kept coming in, these were randomly deployed. Since 2017, all assembly elections are held with EVMs which are attached with VVPATs. As per the present norms, slips generated by one VVPAT in each assembly constituency are counted. Of the 1,500 machines thus counted, not a single mismatch has been found. The Opposition parties have demanded that half of the total slips should be cross-checked. As many as 23 Opposition parties have also moved the Apex Court demanding the same. A group of 73 retired bureaucrats and diplomats have written to the EC on the matter, demanding an appropriate audit of votes cast in the 2019 election. To quote the central premise of the letter, “The real issue today is not about EVMs vs paper ballots, rather it is about EVMs with perfunctory VVPAT audits vs. EVMs with proper VVPAT audit.” The letter highlighted the urgent need for a statistically sound sample size “With 99.9 per cent reliability, in a suitably defined population.” The EC sought the advice of the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, on an appropriate sample size that would ensure 99.99 per cent public satisfaction. The much-awaited report has finally been submitted to the EC according to the latest reports and is being examined. Meanwhile, when the case came up before SC, the Chief Justice asked the Election Commission why the sample size should not be increased. EC has apparently submitted that the experts of ISI have endorsed the current sample of one VVPAT per assembly constituency. On the other hand, the sample size proposed by the political parties would delay the results by six days. All eyes are now on the SC where the case would come up next week. I would also like to venture a more out of the box alternative. Let the top two runners up in the constituency choose any two VVPAT machines that they would like to be counted as they have the highest stake in the results. An appropriate analogy is that of the game of cricket in which two referrals are allowed for each team. This is called the Decision Review System, and ever since its introduction, the violent disputes about the controversial decisions taken by the umpire have disappeared. This could serve to do away with a large random sample being demanded at present, as only four machines per assembly would have to be counted to ensure public faith in the system. EVMs, equipped with VVPATs, are the most dependable arrangement. With only a few weeks to go for the counting, the Commission or the Supreme Court must clinch the debate without any further delay. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

VVPAT-equipped EVMs are most dependable arrangement

The hue and cry around EVMs has by now become a regular feature. The latest controversy involves a sensational claim of a live demonstration of hacking by an Indian cybersecurity expert based in the US in London that never happened. A promised earthquake turned out to be a damp squib.

The supposed “expert” introduced himself as one Syed Shuja, an ex-employee of ECIL, Hyderabad, who claimed to be a member of the team which designed the EVMs. His sensational claim was that he discovered a way which made hacking possible. He went on to say that the 2014 general elections was entirely rigged.

Even the recent state assembly elections would have been rigged but for the counteraction by Shuja and his team. He claimed that a senior BJP leader and a Karnataka journalist who knew about the rigging were killed, besides his own teammates whose murders were covered up as incidents in a communal riot. He said he survived and escaped to the US where he sought political asylum.

These sound like bizarre claims but can be independently verified. One hopes that the agencies concerned would be doing their job. The fact is that “live demonstration” of EVM hacking never happened. But the controversy was revived yet again.&nbsp;

This is by no means a standalone incident. There is a long history of claims and counter-claims. Every political party at some time or the other has raised doubts without any evidence whatsoever. The usual call is to return to ballot papers.&nbsp;

To force the hands of the Election Commission to return to ballot papers, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), in 2010, put up more than 64 candidates in 12 by-elections on the Telangana issue as the EVMs cannot take more than 64 candidates. After scrutiny, six constituencies were left with over 64 candidates, where perforce elections had to be conducted with paper ballots. An equal number used EVMs. In a way, this was a great opportunity to test the relative merits and demerits of the two systems of voting.&nbsp;

While EVM results were out in four hours, ballot papers took 40 hours, with a lot of invalid votes coming in. The results from both the systems were exactly the same.

Interestingly, on that occasion, the BJP was opposing the EVM and the Congress defending it! Since the 2014 elections, all parties have been accusing the BJP of misusing EVMs to win elections without producing any evidence. Hence the song remains the same, only the singers change every couple of years.

The ECI, on the other hand, has confidently challenged all conspiracy theorists to try their hands on its EVMs to show that these can be hacked. Till date no political party has accepted the challenge.&nbsp;

The previous occasion when the demand for ballot papers had reached such a high pitch was in 2010, in the wake of BJP’s hype about hackability of the machines. The ECI had called an all-party meeting where consensus was reached that voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) was the ultimate solution. We accepted the demand and asked the two EVM manufacturing companies to design VVPAT machines.

The independent committee of five IIT professors was asked to oversee the entire technology and process. After a series of trials, the VVPAT was initially tried in Nagaland in 2012 and later in several other states. Since 2017, every state election has been held with these printer-attached machines. Voter chits generated by these machines have been crosschecked in 1,500 booths. All of them tallied. That should have ended the controversy.&nbsp;

Recurrent controversy creates doubts in public minds about the electoral system that has stood the test of time. Lack of public trust in the system is dangerous for democracy. It must be addressed effectively and quickly. Many parties are demanding that a reasonable percentage of VVPAT machines should be counted for public confidence. Let EC examine this demand and arrive at a scientific sample size in consultation with statistical experts so that the controversy is put to rest once for all.&nbsp;

Instead of appearing rigid, the Commission may convene an all-party meeting, yet again, as the basic concern is serious and the stakes are very high. My experience in dealing with political parties is that if we have an open dialogue with them to explain our stand, they always see reason and a consensus does evolve. Giving it another shot, urgently, would be worth its while.&nbsp;&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The hue and cry around EVMs has by now become a regular feature. The latest controversy involves a sensational claim of a live demonstration of hacking by an Indian cybersecurity expert based in the US in London that never happened.

The hue and cry around EVMs has by now become a regular feature. The latest controversy involves a sensational claim of a live demonstration of hacking by an Indian cybersecurity expert based in the US in London that never happened. A promised earthquake turned out to be a damp squib. The supposed “expert” introduced himself as one Syed Shuja, an ex-employee of ECIL, Hyderabad, who claimed to be a member of the team which designed the EVMs. His sensational claim was that he discovered a way which made hacking possible. He went on to say that the 2014 general elections was entirely rigged. Even the recent state assembly elections would have been rigged but for the counteraction by Shuja and his team. He claimed that a senior BJP leader and a Karnataka journalist who knew about the rigging were killed, besides his own teammates whose murders were covered up as incidents in a communal riot. He said he survived and escaped to the US where he sought political asylum. These sound like bizarre claims but can be independently verified. One hopes that the agencies concerned would be doing their job. The fact is that “live demonstration” of EVM hacking never happened. But the controversy was revived yet again. This is by no means a standalone incident. There is a long history of claims and counter-claims. Every political party at some time or the other has raised doubts without any evidence whatsoever. The usual call is to return to ballot papers. To force the hands of the Election Commission to return to ballot papers, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), in 2010, put up more than 64 candidates in 12 by-elections on the Telangana issue as the EVMs cannot take more than 64 candidates. After scrutiny, six constituencies were left with over 64 candidates, where perforce elections had to be conducted with paper ballots. An equal number used EVMs. In a way, this was a great opportunity to test the relative merits and demerits of the two systems of voting. While EVM results were out in four hours, ballot papers took 40 hours, with a lot of invalid votes coming in. The results from both the systems were exactly the same. Interestingly, on that occasion, the BJP was opposing the EVM and the Congress defending it! Since the 2014 elections, all parties have been accusing the BJP of misusing EVMs to win elections without producing any evidence. Hence the song remains the same, only the singers change every couple of years. The ECI, on the other hand, has confidently challenged all conspiracy theorists to try their hands on its EVMs to show that these can be hacked. Till date no political party has accepted the challenge. The previous occasion when the demand for ballot papers had reached such a high pitch was in 2010, in the wake of BJP’s hype about hackability of the machines. The ECI had called an all-party meeting where consensus was reached that voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) was the ultimate solution. We accepted the demand and asked the two EVM manufacturing companies to design VVPAT machines. The independent committee of five IIT professors was asked to oversee the entire technology and process. After a series of trials, the VVPAT was initially tried in Nagaland in 2012 and later in several other states. Since 2017, every state election has been held with these printer-attached machines. Voter chits generated by these machines have been crosschecked in 1,500 booths. All of them tallied. That should have ended the controversy. Recurrent controversy creates doubts in public minds about the electoral system that has stood the test of time. Lack of public trust in the system is dangerous for democracy. It must be addressed effectively and quickly. Many parties are demanding that a reasonable percentage of VVPAT machines should be counted for public confidence. Let EC examine this demand and arrive at a scientific sample size in consultation with statistical experts so that the controversy is put to rest once for all. Instead of appearing rigid, the Commission may convene an all-party meeting, yet again, as the basic concern is serious and the stakes are very high. My experience in dealing with political parties is that if we have an open dialogue with them to explain our stand, they always see reason and a consensus does evolve. Giving it another shot, urgently, would be worth its while. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Recurring EVM controversy

evm-controversy

Evm Controversy, News on Evm Controversy, stories on Evm Controversy, articles on Evm Controversy, Evm Controversy stories at Wion, Evm Controversy news, Evm Controversy latest news

evm controversy

Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking cancellation of Lok Sabha elections 2019

VVPAT-equipped EVMs are most dependable arrangement

Recurring EVM controversy