Home > Recent Judgements > Supreme Court Verdict on EVM-VVPAT Verification: A Crucial Balance Between Transparency and Feasibility
April 28, 2025
Supreme Court Verdict on EVM-VVPAT Verification: A Crucial Balance Between Transparency and Feasibility
Introduction
In a landmark decision on April 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed a long-debated issue concerning the transparency and verifiability of the voting process in Indian elections. The case revolved around the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system. The Court’s judgment aims to strike a balance between voter confidence and the logistical practicality of conducting elections in the world’s largest democracy.
Background: Why Was the Case Filed?
Over the years, several political parties and civil society groups have raised concerns about the integrity and verifiability of EVMs. While the Election Commission of India (ECI) introduced VVPATs to enhance transparency, skepticism persisted. Petitioners in this case sought a more rigorous process: either a complete or significantly expanded physical verification of VVPAT slips and even proposed a manual insertion of these slips into ballot boxes by voters — an idea inspired by traditional paper ballot systems.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict: Key Highlights
- 5% EVM Verification Permitted
The Court ruled that any candidate who contests the validity of the election outcome can request verification of up to 5% of EVMs in each assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency. This verification is to be conducted by engineers from the EVM manufacturing companies, namely Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL).
Why is this important?
This allows candidates a mechanism to seek redressal if they suspect tampering, without burdening the entire electoral system with full-scale recounts or audits.
- Timeframe and Certification
The Court laid down that such a request must be made within seven days of the declaration of election results. Moreover, the entire verification process must be certified by the District Election Officer (DEO), ensuring an official record and administrative oversight.
- Cost and Reimbursement
The candidate requesting verification will initially bear the cost of the technical procedure. However, the judgment includes a protective clause: if any tampering is detected, the expenses will be refunded to the candidate.
Implication:
This clause deters frivolous claims but still protects genuine whistleblowers or complainants who raise valid concerns.
- Rejection of Voter-Inserted VVPAT Slips
Perhaps one of the most debated demands was rejected by the Court — allowing voters to physically handle and insert their VVPAT slips into ballot boxes.
Why was this rejected?
The Court ruled that this would compromise the secrecy of voting and could potentially create more confusion, delay, and tampering opportunities. The current VVPAT system — where slips are auto-generated, visible to the voter for a few seconds, and then stored securely — was deemed adequate.
The Court’s Rationale
The Supreme Court emphasized that while voter confidence in the electoral process is crucial, it must be balanced with **administrative feasibility, secrecy, and cost-effectiveness**. A complete manual audit or enhanced physical handling of VVPAT slips would, according to the Court, introduce new vulnerabilities and strain the already complex electoral process.
Reactions from Stakeholders
- Election Commission of Indiawelcomed the verdict, calling it a pragmatic approach to address transparency without disrupting the system.
- Opposition parties had mixed reactions — while some appreciated the new verification window, others felt the 5% limit was insufficient.
- Civil society groups emphasized the need for better public education on EVM-VVPAT protocols.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s April 26, 2024, judgment on EVM and VVPAT verification represents a balanced approach to addressing electoral integrity. It opens a door for candidates to seek redressal in case of suspected tampering, introduces accountability for claims, and upholds the secrecy and efficiency of India’s electronic voting system.
As India continues to evolve as a digital democracy, such judicial interventions are pivotal in maintaining public trust in its electoral machinery.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
