Deve Gowda backs Mamata, compares Modi govt’s action to emergency days

The Supreme Court of India on Friday, April 26, rejected pleas seeking 100% cross-verification of votes cast using EVMs with a Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) and said “blindly distrusting” any aspect of the system can breed unwarranted scepticism.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta delivered two concurring verdicts. It dismissed all the pleas in the matter, including those seeking to go back to ballot papers in elections.

An EVM comprises three units – the ballot unit, the control unit and the VVPAT. All three are embedded with microcontrollers with a burnt memory from the manufacturer. Currently, VVPATs are used in five booths per assembly constituency.

EVM VVPAT case: Supreme Court issues two directives

1.    Justice Khanna directed the Election Commission of India to seal and store units used to load symbols for 45 days after the symbols have been loaded to electronic voting machines in strong rooms.

2.    The Supreme Court also allowed engineers of the EVM manufacturers to verify the microcontroller of the machines after the declaration of the results at the request of candidates who stood second and third. The top court said the request for the verification of the microcontroller can be made within seven days of the declaration of the results after payment of fees.

Option for candidates to seek verification of EVM programmes

•    Candidates who secure second and third position in the results can request for the verification of burnt memory semicontroller in 5% of the EVMs per assembly segment in a Parliamentary constituency. The written request to be made within seven days of the declaration of the results.

•    *On receiving such a written request, the EVMs shall be checked and verified by a team of engineers from the manufacturer of the EVMs.

•    Candidates should identify the EVMs to be checked by a serial number of the polling booth.

•    Candidates and their representatives can be present at the time of the verification.

•    After verification, the district electoral officer should notify the authenticity of the burnt memory.

•    Expenses for the verification process, as notified by the ECI, should be borne by the candidate making the request.
What did the Supreme Court say?

•    "If EVM is found tampered during verification, fees paid by the candidates will be refunded," the bench said.

•    "While maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial in evaluating systems or institutions, blindly distrusting any aspect of the system can breed unwarranted scepticism...," Justice Datta said.

Who filed the petitions?

NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, one of the petitioners, had sought to reverse the poll panel's 2017 decision to replace the transparent glass on VVPAT machines with an opaque glass through which a voter can see the slip only when the light is on for seven seconds.

The petitioners have also sought the court's direction to revert to the old system of ballot papers.

Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, on Friday, said that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) plans to reintroduce electoral bonds in some capacity following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, should it come back to power in the 2024 general elections, according to a report in the Hindustan Times (HT).

HT cited Nirmala Sitharam as saying, “We still have to do a lot of consultation with stakeholders and see what is it that we have to do to make or bring in a framework which will be acceptable to all, primarily retain the level of transparency and completely remove the possibility of black money entering into this.”

However, the Centre has not yet decided whether to seek a review of the ruling made by the Supreme Court (SC), she said.

She further added, “What the scheme, which has been just thrown out by the Supreme Court, brought in was transparency. What prevailed earlier was just free-for-all.”

Launched in 2018, electoral bonds were accessible for acquisition at any State Bank of India (SBI) branch. Contributions made through this programme by corporations and even foreign entities via Indian subsidiaries received full tax exemption, while the identities of the donors remained confidential, safeguarded by both the bank and the recipient political parties.

On February 15, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the scheme, deeming it ‘unconstitutional’ due to its complete anonymisation of contributions to political parties. Additionally, the Bench stated that the articulated objectives of curbing black money or illegal election financing did not warrant disproportionately infringing upon voters’ right to information.

FM Sitharaman said, some aspects of the scheme need improvement and they will be brought back following consultations.

She also lashed out at the Opposition’s claims that the BJP disregarded criminal charges against leaders who switched from other parties to join the ruling party.

The HT quoted her as saying, “The BJP can’t sit here and say, you come to my party today, and the case will be closed tomorrow. The case has to go through the courts that have to take a call; they will not just say, “Oh, he’s come to your party, close the case.” Doesn’t happen that way. So is this washing machine a term they want to use for the courts?”

She further said that the Union government plans to simplify the process of taxation and make it easy for investments to come through into the country.

The Election Commission of India on Thursday announced that it had taken cognisance of violations to the Model Code of Conduct by both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

While Modi has indulged in a diatribe against Muslims, without naming them, using terms like 'infiltrators' and 'those with more children', Rahul has been accused of making a false claim about 'rise in poverty'.

Both the BJP and INC have raised allegations of causing hatred and divisions based on caste, religion, language, and community, ANI reported.

While the EC had initially refused to comment on Modi's speeches, sources had told PTI that the commission was 'looking into' the remarks made by the BJP leader.