Why Election Commission's FAQs on EVM-VVPATs Don't Clear Cloud of Suspicion Over Electoral Process https://thewire.in/rights/why-election-commissions-faqs-on-evm-vvpats-dont-clear-cloud-of-suspicion-over-electoral-process Venkatesh Nayak
While concurring with the judgement (Association for Democratic Reforms & Ar., vs Union of India) authored by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on behalf of the Bench, Justice Khanna in his separate opinion says- “
“19. The right to vote is a constitutional and statutory right,… grounded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as the casting of a vote amounts to expression of an opinion by the voter… The citizens’ right to know stems from this very right, as meaningfully exercising choice by voting requires information. Representatives elected as a result of the votes cast in their favour, enact new, and amend existing laws, and when in power, take policy decisions. Access to information which can materially shape the citizens’ choice is necessary for them to have a say in how their lives are affected. Thus, the right to know is paramount for free and fair elections and democracy.” (emphasis supplied)
Chief Justice Chandrachud records the views of the Constitution Bench about the importance of the voters’ right to know in the following words:
“77. The following principles can be deduced from the decisions of this Court in ADR (supra) and PUCL (supra):
The right to information of voters which is traced to Article 19(1)(a) is built upon the jurisprudence of both the first and the second phases in the evolution of the doctrine, identified above. The common thread of reasoning which runs through both the first and the second phases is that information which furthers democratic participation must be provided to citizens. Voters have a right to information which would enable them to cast their votes rationally and intelligently because voting is one of the foremost forms of democratic participation;…” (emphasis supplied)
The levels of transparency that the ECI has adopted are hopelessly inadequate to meet the very high standards that the Supreme Court of India has set for our right to know, as citizen-voters.
https://thewire.in/rights/election-commissions-faqs-on-evms-dont-really-address-major-design-deficiencies Madhav Deshpande Considering the accepted vulnerability of the VVPAT, it becomes necessary to provide a recourse to every voter who complains of a VVPAT slip that does not match their choice of button press; because now with a programmable part of the VVPAT, it must be admitted that Madhavnon-transparent transformation of the vote is possible even within the VVPAT. VVPAT is a misnomer because it allows only view, not verification.
Answer to Q49 says “If a DRE produces a voter verifiable paper audit trail, it is software independent”. What is the basis for this definition? No reference is cited. The principle of “software independence” was introduced by Wack and Rivest and according to its application to a voting system, “A voting system is software-independent if an (undetected) change or error in its software cannot cause an undetectable change or error in an election outcome.” “Software System” in this definition includes both program and data constants. Since undetected data constants (like a * against an image or an x,y styled response as mentioned in “5” above) may be processed by the unknown program in the VVPAT and CU to cause error in the election outcome, undetected change can cause a detectable change in the election outcome and therefore the test for software independence of the VVPAT + CU fails even on theoretical grounds.