In a recent development, India's highest court has voiced skepticism and raised pertinent inquiries concerning the legitimacy of demands for comprehensive 100% Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) verification as the nation prepares for the imminent 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has vigorously defended the infallibility and dependability of electronic voting machines (EVMs), affirming their invulnerability to tampering through a formidable array of technological safeguards. They insist that EVMs are safeguarded against tampering across all phases, encompassing pre-polling, polling, post-polling, and even during transportation.

This legal challenge emanates from a public interest litigation (PIL) instigated by the non-governmental organization Association for Democratic Reforms. The petitioner ardently advocates for a comprehensive cross-verification of EVM data with VVPAT records, underscoring the urgent need for heightened transparency within the electoral process.

However, the Election Commission counters these assertions, contending that manual VVPAT counting would be labor-intensive and susceptible to human errors and potential misconduct. Their argument posits that such a transition would represent a retrograde step away from the modernized electronic system to the conventional paper ballot method.

The petitioner, in pursuit of voter empowerment, has also sought a court declaration to affirm voters' inherent right to validate the accuracy of their cast vote. In response, the Election Commission has challenged the existence of any such fundamental right within the democratic framework.

The Commission underscores that the existing system, involving random verification of five VVPATs per assembly constituency, yields an exceptionally high level of certainty in the determination of election results. This stance has been substantiated by the endorsement of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI).

Furthermore, the Commission discloses that, from a sampling of 38,156 VVPATs cross-referenced with electronic counts, no anomalies involving the transfer of votes from one candidate to another were identified. They argue that any disparities were exclusively attributed to procedural intricacies, which are systematically resolved through established protocols.

The Supreme Court has voiced reservations regarding the propositions tabled by the Association for Democratic Reforms, casting doubt on the depth of suspicion and raising pertinent questions. The court, cognizant of the Election Commission's counter-affidavit and the absence of immediate urgency, has opted to adjourn further deliberations until November.