The Supreme Court has dismissed a revision petition challenging its April 26 order to reject a plea seeking tally of every Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slip with votes cast through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta dismissed the petition on want of merit.
The review petition pointed out certain mistakes and errors in the April 26 verdict.
Petitioner Arun Kumar Agarwal contended that it would not be correct to say that the result would be unreasonably delayed by tallying EVM votes with VVPAT slips, or that it would require double the manpower already deployed.
He said the existing CCTV surveillance of counting halls would ensure that manipulation and mischief did not occur in VVPAT slip counting.
Earlier on April 26, the Apex Court dismissed a plea seeking to tally all VVPAT slips with EVM votes and giving suggestion to go back to a paper ballot-based system of voting instead of having EVMs.
The Apex Court emphasised on the need to nurture a culture of trust and collaboration to strengthen democracy while dismissing the plea.
The Bench, however, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) and other authorities to take certain steps to bolster more confidence in EVMs, such as sealing the symbol loading units (SLUs) on completion of the symbol loading process and keeping the sealed container in strong rooms for 45 days.
It suggested making an optional provision for all candidates to remain present at the time of verification. The District Election Officer should certify the authenticity of the burnt memory, advised the Bench.
The top court of the country further suggested that burnt memory in the micro-controller unit should be checked by a team of engineers.
Agarwal argued in his review plea that these measures were not adequate.
He argued that the entire discussion on SLU ignored the fact that SLU was vulnerable and needed auditing. The Court completely overlooked the possibility that the data in SLU could have extra bytes other than just the necessary images, he added.
The review petition contended that the April 26 judgment incorrectly noted that presently, 5 percent of VVPAT slips were tallied with votes cast, when in practice only 1.97 percent of VVPAT slips were tallied with EVM votes.