Today, the Supreme Court emphasized that it does not hold authoritative control over elections and cannot prescribe how the Election Commission, a constitutional body, should operate. These comments were made during the hearing on petitions advocating for comprehensive cross-verification of votes recorded on Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with paper slips produced by the VVPAT system. The court has deferred its judgment on the matter for the time being.

The bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta asserted that it cannot act solely on suspicion.

In response to concerns raised by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, the court stated, "If you already have a predetermined mindset, then our role is limited... we are not here to alter your perspective."

In light of concerns surrounding electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), the petitions are requesting a directive to ensure that each vote recorded on EVMs undergoes cross-verification with the paper slips generated by the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system. Presently, this cross-verification process is conducted for only five randomly chosen EVMs in each Assembly constituency.

During previous hearings, the petitioners emphasized the importance of public trust and drew parallels with European nations that have reverted to traditional ballot voting systems. However, the court dismissed such comparisons, noting that the challenges faced in the Indian context are distinct. In response, the Election Commission reiterated that the existing system is entirely secure and reliable.

Each Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) consists of two units: the control unit and the balloting unit, which are linked by a cable. Additionally, both units are connected to a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machine. This apparatus allows voters to visually confirm whether their vote was accurately cast and registered for the candidate of their choice.

At the start of today's proceedings, the court sought clarifications from the election commission regarding the microcontrollers within the voting system and whether they are susceptible to reprogramming.

The Election Commission asserted that each of the three units possesses its own microcontrollers, which can only be programmed once. However, Mr. Bhushan argued that these microcontrollers feature flash memory, which is indeed re-programmable. He contested the assertion that they cannot be re-programmed, stating, "To claim that they are not re-programmable is inaccurate."

The court said it has to trust the poll body's technical report. "They are saying quantum of flash memory is very low. They can store 1024 symbols, not software. They say that as far as microcontrollers in the CU (control unit) is concerned, it is agnostic. It does not recognise the party or symbol, it knows the buttons," Justice Khanna said.