Instances of discrepancies in vote counts have cast doubts over the accuracy and transparency of elections conducted using EVMs
Dr. Viswanath Pandey
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) advocating for the reinstatement of ballot papers has reignited debates over the credibility of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) neutrality. Justice Vikram Nath, presiding over the two-judge bench, sharply noted, “If you win the elections, EVMs are not tampered with. When you lose elections, EVMs are tampered with.” This remark has led to polarized opinions. While the apex court’s stance affirms its trust in EVMs, dissenting voices argue that systemic anomalies and alleged manipulation raise serious concerns about democracy’s future.
The petitioner, evangelist K.A. Paul, had passionately argued that reverting to ballot papers was necessary to safeguard democracy. He claimed his plea was supported by 18 political parties and backed by a coalition of civil society members. However, the court dismissed his argument, stating that India, as a unique democracy, need not imitate global practices. Yet, allegations of discrepancies in vote counts, unexplained anomalies in polling data, and the Election Commission’s perceived favoritism raise pertinent questions about the institution’s impartiality.
Questionable Voting Patterns
Instances of discrepancies in vote counts have cast doubts over the accuracy and transparency of elections conducted using EVMs. One striking case comes from Maharashtra’s Akkalkot assembly constituency, where Sunil Shivaji Pandakar, a candidate of the Rashtriya Samaj Paksha, reportedly received zero votes in a booth despite casting his vote there. Critics argue that such anomalies cannot merely be brushed aside as clerical errors, as they undermine public trust in the electoral system.
Similarly, in Nanded constituency, Congress emerged victorious with 5,86,728 votes in the parliamentary segment. Yet, when votes from six assembly segments within the constituency were tallied, the party recorded only 4,27,465 votes—an inexplicable shortfall of over 1.5 lakh votes. In the same election, Kannad constituency exhibited further irregularities. Shiv Sena’s Eknath Shinde faction received 84,492 votes, while its rival faction garnered 46,510 votes. An independent candidate, on the other hand, was reported to have received merely 66,621 votes. Such figures, critics contend, defy logical scrutiny and demand deeper investigation.
Beyond individual discrepancies, village-level anomalies amplify doubts. For instance, in Talner village, 396 registered voters accounted for 312 polled votes. Yet, the final tally revealed 612 votes—indicating a discrepancy of over 300 votes. Similarly, in Nevapurkh village, 745 polled votes ballooned to 813 during counting. These glaring inconsistencies, critics allege, reflect systemic loopholes that require urgent redress.
Opposition’s Growing Concern
Opposition parties, particularly Congress, have seized upon these anomalies to question the Election Commission’s impartiality. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge has announced plans for a nationwide protest to raise public awareness of what he described as “a deliberate attempt to manipulate democratic processes.” Echoing these sentiments, Rahul Gandhi emphasized the need for electoral reforms during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, calling for “accountability from constitutional institutions that are supposed to safeguard democracy.”
Congress is not alone in its concerns. In Andhra Pradesh, former Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu has long raised alarms about EVM tampering, citing international experts and technical studies to support his claims. Similarly, civil society commentators have argued that the ECI’s failure to address such allegations transparently only fuels public distrust.
Election Commission Under Scrutiny
Criticism of the Election Commission’s functioning is not new but has intensified in recent years. Civic groups and political analysts have raised questions about its neutrality, especially under the current government. Prominent social activist Aruna Roy remarked, “When constitutional bodies like the Election Commission act under pressure from the ruling party, democracy suffers irreparably.” This view is echoed by former bureaucrats and retired judges who have expressed concerns over the declining independence of India’s electoral institutions.
The ECI’s seizure of Rs. 9,000 crore during recent elections has also been highlighted as evidence of deep-rooted corruption in the electoral process. While the commission claims this reflects its commitment to curbing malpractices, critics argue that it exposes the extent to which elections have been compromised.
Civil society organizations have called for greater transparency and accountability in the electoral process. They emphasize the need for third-party audits of EVMs and stronger safeguards to prevent tampering. The petitioner K.A. Paul’s reference to Elon Musk’s remarks on EVM vulnerability underscores the global debate on the reliability of electronic voting systems. While the Supreme Court dismissed these concerns as speculative, the public demand for robust mechanisms to ensure fair elections remains strong.
The debate over EVMs is not just about technology but about trust in democratic institutions. Critics argue that dismissing concerns without thorough investigation risks eroding public faith in the electoral process. Senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai remarked, “Democracy thrives on transparency and trust. When citizens begin to doubt the system, the very foundation of democracy is at stake.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the use of EVMs reflects its confidence in the system, but the broader issues raised by civil society and political leaders cannot be ignored. Addressing these concerns through systemic reforms and greater accountability is essential to preserve the sanctity of India’s democracy. As Lal Krishna Advani once observed, “India’s beauty lies in the impartiality of its constitutional institutions.” Ensuring that this impartiality remains intact is the need of the hour.
Democracy Under Strain
The Supreme Court’s recent dismissal of a PIL seeking the reinstatement of ballot papers has left democracy advocates disheartened. While the court highlighted the tendency of political parties to question the credibility of EVMs only when defeated, activists argue that the issue goes beyond party politics. They emphasize the increasing strain on democratic processes in India, fueled by allegations of electoral malpractice and declining faith in constitutional institutions. The reliance on EVMs, despite recurring anomalies and international skepticism, has exacerbated concerns.
The growing distress among democracy lovers stems from the belief that impartiality in elections is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Instances of discrepancies, such as zero votes being recorded for candidates who voted for themselves, further compound mistrust. Civil society members argue that such errors, whether due to technical faults or manipulation, demand urgent redress to restore confidence in the electoral process.
Lessons from Global Democracies
India’s approach to EVMs has drawn scrutiny in the international context. Several advanced democracies have either reverted to paper-based voting systems or maintain stringent checks to ensure transparency. Germany, for instance, banned EVMs in 2009 after a landmark judgment by its Federal Constitutional Court. The case was initiated by ordinary citizens who argued that EVMs violated the principle of public verifiability—a critical aspect of democratic elections. The court ruled that voters must be able to verify election outcomes without requiring special technical expertise.
Similarly, in the Netherlands, EVMs were discontinued in 2007 due to security concerns raised by activists and experts. Studies showed that the machines were vulnerable to hacking and tampering, prompting the government to prioritize public trust over technological convenience. The United States, though employing electronic systems in some states, ensures rigorous audits and paper trails to mitigate risks. Critics in India argue that the absence of such measures here leaves EVMs vulnerable to manipulation and undermines electoral integrity.
Western Opinions on EVMs
International opinion on EVMs reflects a cautious approach. Studies by organizations like the Verified Voting Foundation and global cybersecurity experts have repeatedly highlighted the risks associated with electronic voting systems. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2022, 63% of respondents across 30 countries expressed concerns about electronic voting systems’ susceptibility to tampering. Countries like Canada and the UK continue to rely on paper ballots, valuing transparency and simplicity over speed.
India, despite being the world’s largest democracy, has not adopted similar safeguards. The Election Commission’s assurances about EVM security have failed to quell public anxiety. Critics often point to data discrepancies in recent elections, such as mismatches between voter turnout and counted votes, to argue that technological advancements should not come at the cost of electoral credibility.
The stress experienced by democracy advocates is not unfounded. Public trust in elections is a non-negotiable pillar of any democratic society. The examples of Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada demonstrate that prioritizing transparency over convenience strengthens the democratic process. India, too, must address concerns over EVMs with urgency. Whether through independent audits, stricter oversight, or a hybrid voting model incorporating paper trails, the goal must be to ensure that every citizen feels their vote counts—and counts fairly.
Without such measures, the strain on India’s democracy will only intensify, risking the erosion of faith in its foundational institutions.
The strain on India’s democracy underscores the urgent need for electoral reforms that prioritize transparency and trust. Learning from nations like Germany and the Netherlands, where public concerns about electronic voting led to systemic changes, India must address EVM-related apprehensions through robust audits, paper trails, and impartial oversight. Only by ensuring that every vote is counted accurately and fairly can the integrity of elections be preserved, restoring faith in democratic institutions and safeguarding the nation’s democratic ideals.
(Author is a former P.R. Officer at B.H.U., renowned for writing extensively researched books, and a staunch advocate for strong democracy and democratic values globally, standing as a prominent voice among intellectuals and thought leaders.)
