Tuesday, Nov 30, 2021 | Last Update : 03:38 PM IST

  Metros   Mumbai  02 Feb 2019  Bombay HC seeks EC reply on PIL on current VVPAT use

Bombay HC seeks EC reply on PIL on current VVPAT use

THE ASIAN AGE. | SHAHAB ANSARI
Published : Feb 2, 2019, 6:38 am IST
Updated : Feb 2, 2019, 6:38 am IST

The petitioner alleged that the VVPAT system implemented in the election was different from that intended in the direction of the apex court.

Bombay High Court
 Bombay High Court

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has sought the Election Commission’s reply on a public interest litigation questioning the way the “Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail” (VVPAT) is being used with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

According to the petitio-ner, the purpose of using VVPAT is defeated because it’s not in correct sequence and there is involvement of the human element at two stages, leaving scope for doubt. The petitioner is demanding a change in sequence and non-interference of hum-an beings in the process.

 

The petition, filed through advocate Shekhar Jagtap, reads that the petitioner, Prasthan Yadav himself, is an inventor of a few foolproof voting machines and hence, “he can foresee a threat to our democracy in the form of a wrong process.”

According to the petitioner, the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013, issued direction to the Union of India to provide the required financial assistance for procurement of units of VVPAT in stages or geography-wise in the ensuing general elections.

The petitioner alleged that the VVPAT system implemented in the election was different from that intended in the direction of the apex court.

The petitioner explained the current process saying that the ballot unit is connected with the VVPAT machine which is connected with the control unit, whereby a voter presses a button of the ballot unit and immediately, VVPAT prints the symbol on a paper trail and displays it for seven seconds for the voter to view and thereafter, the VVPAT machine transmits the information to the control unit.

 

According to the petitioner, this sequence is incorrect because the voter first gets to view the acknowledgement in the form of a paper trail displayed on the VVPAT machine and then the VVPAT transmits the vote to the control unit to be registered, however, the intention of the court was to provide a paper trail to the voters after registering their vote in the control unit.

According to the petitioner, the proper sequence should be adopted.

Tags: election commission, electronic voting machines