EVM Tampering Debate: Is It Time To Go Back To Paper Ballots?

As the results of Uttar Pradesh’s Assembly elections came in and it became clear that Bharatiya Janata Party was on its way to a historic win, there were rumbles of discontent. The first to pick up the microphone was Bahujan Samaj Party’s Mayawati. Expressing shock at how BJP could have got Muslim votes despite not having fielded a single Muslim candidate, Mayawati alleged that “gadbad” (tampering) had been done with electronic voting machines (EVMs). “Either the EVMs did not accept votes other than BJP, or the votes of other parties have gone to BJP in the EVMs,” she said.

Mayawati’s complaint was echoed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal when he met the press to take responsibility for Aam Aadmi Party’s drubbing in Punjab. Reminding everyone that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is supposed to phase in voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) because of previous complaints against EVMs, Kejriwal said, “Developed countries have given up EVMs. Should we not rethink? Even the BJP, including Advaniji, had said EVMs can be tampered with.”

Both Mayawati and Kejriwal have been dubbed sore losers. That, unfortunately, is the plight of the complainant. After all, why would a winner question the polling system that’s brought them victory? However, despite the ECI backing the EVM system, there are concerns about it that haven’t entirely been quelled.

The ECI replied to BSP’s written complaint against EVMs with a letter that detailed the system’s security measures. “The Commission is thus fully satisfied with the tamper proof functioning of the ECI-EVMs,” it said in its reply to BSP. Newslaundry has procured a copy. “Although the Commission has offered opportunities more than once to those alleging the tamperability of EVM, no one has been able to demonstrate to the Commission that the EVMs used in the country’s election process, can be manipulated or tampered with,” says the ECI.

Definitive as the ECI’s stand and stringent as the security measures it’s detailed may be, this is not an open and shut case. A group of researchers have alleged serious chinks in the EVM’s security and that “in spite of the machine’s simplicity and minimal software trusted computing base, it is vulnerable to serious attacks that can alter election results and violate the secrecy of the ballot.”

One of these researchers, technologist Hari Prasad was arrested in 2010 by Maharashtra Police, for stealing an EVM from a polling booth and using it to demonstrate how EVMs can be tampered. However, S Y Quraishi, who served as the Chief Election Commissioner from 2011-2012, told Newslaundry, “Do you know that Hari Prasad had called me after he got arrested? I had spoken to then Joint Secretary of ECI and got him released on personal guarantee. His detainment had nothing to do with EVM controversy. He was detained because he had been violating visa rules. Hari, after his release, had personally come to thank me and after that I have heard no criticism regarding EVM hacking.”

There is, however, an online video that explains how EVMs can be hacked using a bluetooth device. Critics like Prasad argue that one would require little time in the presence of the EVM to be able to hack it although it would take meticulous planning beforehand. It’s worth noting that it isn’t only the ECI that has access to EVMs before they’re brought into the field. There are private players, like the foreign companies that supply micro controllers and are involved in maintenance of the EVMs, who could tamper with the machines. Asked about these theories, Quraishi agreed that one could potentially change what was on the display on the EVM, but he didn’t see how that would change the data recorded. “Also, it requires you to get hold of the machine first, open it and install a gadget in it,” Quraishi said.

The problem that critics have pointed out with EVMs is that a voter doesn’t know if their vote has registered correctly since it’s entirely paperless and mechanised. If, for instance, the wrong symbol was selected by mistake or if there was some technical malfunction, the voter would be none the wiser. VVPAT creates a parallel paper trail that lets the voter see if their vote has registered correctly. A printer is attached to the balloting unit and kept in the voting compartment. A paper slip records the name and symbol of the candidate along with a recording of the vote. It remains visible on VVPAT for seven seconds through a transparent window, letting the voter see their vote and creating a record against which the EVM’s data can be cross-checked. The Supreme Court has seen merit in introducing VVPAT alongside EVMs.

In 2012, two petitions were filed – one by Subramanian Swamy and another by one Rajendra Satyanarayan Gilda – asking VVPAT be introduced in order to ensure our elections genuinely are fair. After losing the 2004 Lok Sabha elections by a wide margin, Subramanian Swamy (then leader of Janata Party) was one of the few prominent leaders to have openly blamed EVM for his loss. In his petition, Swamy alleged EVMs are open to hacking and said that VVPAT would bring greater accuracy and transparency to the Indian electoral process. The ECI told the Supreme Court, where these two petitions were heard, that it had conducted field trials with VVPAT, but these had been unsuccessful.

After hearing all sides, the Supreme Court judgement pronounced the following:

“From the materials placed by both the sides, we are satisfied that the “paper trail” is an indispensable requirement of free and fair elections. The confidence of the voters in the EVMs can be achieved only with the introduction of the ‘paper trail’. EVMs with VVPAT system ensure the accuracy of the voting system. With an intent to have fullest transparency in the system and to restore the confidence of the voters, it is necessary to set up EVMs with VVPAT system because vote is nothing but an act of expression which has immense importance in democratic system.”

ECI was instructed to introduce VVPAT in gradual stages, which it claims it has been doing. However, the pace isn’t fast enough for activists like Srikanth Chintala, who runs an NGO called Public Interest in Hyderabad, is the national general secretary of BAMCEF (All-India Backward and Minority Communities Employment Federation) and has been campaigning for the introduction of VVPAT since the 2013 judgement.

In the past four years, Chintala has filed approximately 50 RTIs to find out the exact number of VVPAT machines that had been procured by ECI. In reply to those RTIs, dated October 2014 and February 2015, the ECI said that the total number of machines procured from the manufacturers were 20,300. However, that was not how many VVPAT systems were actually used during elections.

“Isn’t it ironic that all those who had spoken against EVMs prior to the SC 2013 judgment are today mum and speaking in favour of EVM system?” Chintala asked Newslaundry, referring to the silence maintained by the likes of Swamy and GVL Narasimha Rao, who had both been critics of the EVM system but now, as part of the BJP establishment, have not supported Mayawati and Kejriwal’s contentions.

The ECI has said that it is complying with the court order and gradually introducing VVPAT. It stated that VVPATs have been used in 255 assembly constituencies and nine parliamentary constituencies.

Chintala also shared how in a sample survey done after the 2014 Maharashtra state assembly elections, BAMCEF had found that an MLA candidate from Bahujan Mukti Party from Amravati constituency had received no votes in a booth where she had cast her own vote. “When we enquired the case, we learnt that VVPAT was used in that particular constituency but the ECI had refused to conduct a re-counting of the VVPAT slips, which was quite surprising,” he said. “Denial of VVPAT re-counting is as equal as not introducing the system at all. Hence, it is also very important to change the re-counting rules of VVPAT system, or switch back to the traditional ballot paper,” he told Newslaundry.

There have been jokes going around about how BJP’s opponents would like to go technologically backwards simply because they’re uncomfortable with the UP election results, but of course, the issue of EVM tampering is more complicated than that. Just as the summary dismissals of the allegations of tampering are too quick, the reaction that a loss is a sign of unfair elections is equally kneejerk. It now falls upon the judiciary and activists like Chintala to sift through the opinions and on-ground realities to figure out how to make sure the electoral process becomes a more reliable and unquestionable reflection of the public’s political opinion.