On Tuesday, the Supreme Court requested the Indian government’s perspective on the potential implementation of a totaliser for vote counting in clusters recorded by Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). This proposal aims to enhance voter privacy and reduce the risk of voter harassment, contrasting with the current method of counting votes by each polling booth.
A three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Surya Kant inquired about the possibility of amending the Conduct of Elections Rules, established in 1961, which currently permits this approach for paper ballots, to extend it to EVMs as well.
The bench, which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, was reviewing petitions that called for the Election Commission (EC) to disclose results for entire parliamentary constituencies rather than providing detailed booth-wise data.
A totaliser is a mechanism that aggregates votes from approximately 14 polling booths, allowing them to be counted collectively.
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, argued that adopting the totaliser system could significantly reduce instances of post-election violence. He pointed out that much of this violence occurs when political parties are aware of the vote counts from specific booths, whereas using a totaliser would obscure this information, thus protecting voters and supporting the democratic process.
Upadhyay referenced a Supreme Court ruling from January 2018, noting that the EC had previously endorsed the totaliser concept but had since changed its stance. He also mentioned that the Law Commission had advocated for its implementation.
Senior Advocate DS Naidu, representing the Election Commission, stated that an all-party meeting had been held regarding the totaliser, where 50% of national parties and 68% of state parties expressed opposition. He added that the matter was referred to a Group of Ministers, who also opposed it, indicating widespread political resistance.
Justice Bagchi acknowledged that while the totaliser could theoretically anonymize voter preferences, it lacked legal support. He highlighted the challenge of implementing such a system without the necessary statutory framework, noting that the EC had not outright rejected the totaliser but had identified significant obstacles.
Naidu emphasized that the EC’s affidavit outlined both the potential benefits and challenges of using a totaliser.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing another petitioner, argued that the primary concern of political parties was their need to manage polling at each booth. He contended that this should not be a valid reason to dismiss the totaliser, especially when voters face intimidation that could lead to their targeting based on specific booth results. He referenced recommendations made by the Law Commission, the EC, and the ministry in 2010 aimed at protecting voters.
Naidu asserted that the EC could only make recommendations, and it was ultimately the responsibility of the Central government to establish rules in consultation with the EC.
Justice Bagchi questioned whether the totaliser could be utilized in situations where there is a clear risk of victimization. Naidu responded by noting that the Law Commission had suggested that it be used selectively.
In its affidavit, the Commission emphasized the absence of a legal provision to implement the totaliser and indicated that it could disrupt the existing auditing process associated with Form 17C, which records votes cast and is maintained in two sections under the Conduct of Election Rules. The Commission cautioned that counting votes in clusters might obscure discrepancies within individual EVMs, masking issues within the overall results.
