IMPORTANT POINT
The ECI has to handle one million (ten lakhs) polling booths, the Supreme Court permitted the ECI to introduce the EVMs with VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) system in gradual stages or geographical-wise in the ensuing general elections.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted. Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 13735 of 2012

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 11879 of 2009 whereby the High Court disposed of the petition by disallowing the prayer made by the appellant herein for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission of India (ECI)-Respondent herein to incorporate a system of “paper trail/paper receipt” in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) as a convincing proof that the EVM has rightly registered the vote cast by a voter in favour of a particular candidate.

3) Being aggrieved of the above, the present appeal has been filed by way of special leave.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2012

4) One Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda has filed this Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus/direction(s) directing the Union of India, the Chief Election Commissioner and the Technical Experts Committee-Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein respectively to effect the necessary modifications in the EVMs so as to allow the voters to verify their respective votes and to attach the printers to the EVMs with a facility to print the running record of the votes for the purpose of verification by the voters in the process of voting. He also prayed for a direction to frame guidelines and to effect necessary amendments in the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

5) In view of the pendency of the appeal filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, this Court issued notice in the writ petition and tagged with the said appeal.

6) Heard Dr. Subramanian Swamy, appellant-in-person in the appeal, Dr. R.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Ashok Desai and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the ECI. Contentions:

7) Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the appellant herein contended before this Court that the present system of EVMs, as utilized in the last few general elections in India, does not meet all the requirements of the international standards and though the ECI maintains that the EVMs cannot be tampered with, but the fact is that EVMs, like all electronic equipments, are open to hacking.

8) The appellant has further highlighted that the instant matter arises out of the refusal of the ECI to incorporate a certain obvious safeguard in the EVMs called “paper backup”, “paper receipt” or “paper trail”, presently in use and mandated in some countries like USA, which would easily and cheaply meet the requirement of proof that the EVM has rightly registered the vote cast by a voter. The appellant has further highlighted that the “paper trail” system is to supplement the procedure of voting as in this procedure, after recording a vote in the EVM, a print out will come out which will appraise the voter that his vote has been rightly registered and the same will be deposited in a box which can only be used by the ECI in case of election dispute.

9) It is the categorical stand of the appellant that the above said system will bring more accuracy in the present system and if a particular election is challenged on the ground that some particular identified voter’s voter or the votes of a group of voters have been suppressed/have not been correctly assigned by the EVMs, the accepted current procedure is for a re-run of the same EVMs for a re-count, however, under the new procedure, a re-count will be of the receipts in the ballot box containing the printouts the EVMs had issued to the voter thereby ensuring more transparency in the process.

10) The writ petitioner has also raised similar contentions as those of Dr. Swamy. According to the petitioner, in the present system of voting through EVMs, there is no such facility by which a voter can verify and confirm his own voting. At present, a voter presses a button only but cannot ascertain the actual voting. He is not sure whether his vote is recorded or not,