EVM-VVPAT row: Defeated candidates can verify votes after elections if...

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected all petitions seeking 100 per cent verification of votes polled on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with their Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips. It, however, provided options for election candidates to seek EVM verification in case they suspect any anomaly.

"Candidates who secure second and third position in the [election] results can request for the verification of burnt memory semicontroller...," the Supreme Court said.

The top court said the burnt memory or micro-controller in 5 per cent of EVMs shall be checked by a team of engineers after the declaration of results, news agency ANI reported.

ALSO READ: No 100% verification of EVM-VVPATs, says Supreme Court: ‘Blindly distrusting poll process…’

This will only be done at a request by defeated candidates. Also, such a request for verification can be made within seven days after the declaration of results, the Supreme Court said.

However, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has maintained that EVMs cannot be tampered with.

The process in detail

As per the Supreme Court's verdict, candidates who secure second and third positions in the results can request for the verification of burnt memory or micro-controllers in 5 per cent of the EVMs per assembly segment in a parliamentary constituency.

The written request must be made by the candidate within seven days of the declaration of the results. On receiving the written request, the EVMs shall be checked and verified by a team of engineers from their manufacturer, as per a report by Live Law.

“The burnt memory or microcontroller in 5 per cent of the EVMs, that is, the Control Unit, Ballot Unit and the VVPAT per assembly segment of the parliamentary constituency, shall be checked and verified by a team of engineers from the manufacturers of the EVM post the announcement of results, for any tampering or modification, on a written request made by candidates who are at serial no. 2 or 3 behind the highest polled candidate,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna was quoted as saying in the report.

The microcontroller is a one-time programmable chip embedded into the three units of EVM – Ballot Unit, Control Unit and the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail at the time of manufacturing.

The report added that candidates should identify the EVMs to be checked by the serial number of the polling booth.

Also, all candidates shall have the option to be present at the time of verification, Bar and Bench reported. After verification, the district election officer shall notify the authenticity of the burnt memory.

Cost of verification

The reports cited the Supreme Court as saying that expenses for the verification process, as notified by the Election Commission of India, should be borne by the candidate making the request. "If the EVMs are found to be tampered with, the cost will be refunded to the candidate," the court added.

"After the verification process is conducted, the actual cost or expenses for the said verification is to be notified by the ECI and the candidate making the said request will make payment of the said expenses," the Supreme Court bench clarified.

How can VOTERS get their votes verified?

If an elector, after having recorded his/her vote, alleges that the paper slip generated by the printer has shown the name or symbol of a candidate other than the one he/she voted for, then they can seek verification under Rule 49MA of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

The Election Commission said that as per the provisions of Rule 49MA, the Presiding Officer obtains a written declaration from the voter as to the allegation – after informing the elector about the consequence of making a false declaration as per the Indian Penal Code.

"If the elector gives the written declaration referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 49MA, the Presiding Officer permits the elector to record a test vote in the voting machine in his/her presence and in the presence of the candidates or polling agents who may be present in the polling station, and observe the paper slip generated by the printer," the EC says.

"If the allegation is found true, the Presiding Officer will report the facts immediately to the Returning Officer, stop further recording of votes in that voting machine and act as per the directions that may be given by the Returning Officer," it adds.

And if the allegation is found to be false and the paper slip so generated under sub-rule (1) matches with the test vote recorded by the elector under sub-rule (2), then, the Presiding Officer shall "make a remark to that effect against the second entry relating to that elector in Form 17A, Rule 49L".

He then must mention the serial number and name of the candidate for whom such test vote has been recorded; Obtain the signature or thumb impression of that elector against such remarks; and make necessary entries regarding such test vote in item 5 in Part I of Form 17C.