New Delhi: Call it total recall. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has been pushing since 2008 for the usage of ‘totaliser’ machines during elections to mask booth-wise voting patterns. But it has now told the Supreme Court that the machine shouldn’t be introduced as yet, considering questions raised already in the public domain on the integrity of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The introduction of ‘totaliser’ machines at this time, it said, would inevitably lead to fresh anxieties on data integrity and machine tampering.
A totaliser is a machine that can connect a cluster of 14 EVMs used at 14 polling stations through a cable. This, in turn, can provide a consolidated result for each candidate in that group of EVMs. A totaliser is, therefore, akin to the mixing of votes in the paper ballot system to anonymise booth-wise data.
In an affidavit filed Monday, the ECI told the Supreme Court that it “is of the considered and humble opinion that the totaliser ought not to be introduced as of now”. It says that if considered necessary by Parliament or the Government of India in future, its introduction must be preceded by the requisite legislative and policy amendments, and the evolution of a mechanism that can ensure compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court pertaining to verification of Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips.
The ECI was responding to a petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in 2017, demanding, among other things, a direction to the central government and ECI to take appropriate steps to use totalisers for counting the votes of Lok Sabha, Assembly and local body elections. Petitions with similar demands were clubbed together, and the Supreme Court had clarified in January 2018 that it shall only address the issue of introduction of a totaliser, and had sought the ECI’s response on the suggestion.
In the same January 2018 order, the Supreme Court had noted the ECI’s stand that “a time has come for introduction of totaliser for counting of the votes”. The poll panel had also told the court that secrecy of the ballot, privacy of the individual and the right of the people staying in a particular locality should not be exposed, and that any kind of prejudice or discrimination because of voting patterns should be avoided.
But the ECI has now submitted that information on booth-level voting patterns may be utilised by some political parties to improve their outreach programme in booths where they have not performed as per their expectations and make organisational decisions accordingly, or may be used by others in “some vexatious manner”.
However, it said that just the possibility of “vexatious” use of information is not sufficient to create a system where booth-wise data is not shared with candidates and their agents, and they are not able to tally the polling and counting data through Form 17C.
In fact, the ECI has told the court that introduction of a totaliser would “result in material and substantive lowering of transparency in the counting process, having specific regard to the statutory safeguard presently embodied in Form 17C prescribed under the Conduct of Election Rules 1961”.
Part I of Form 17C details the total number of votes recorded on the day of polling, and number of electors, among other things, and Part II breaks down the number of votes for each candidate to record the election results. Candidates and their agents are also provided with an opportunity to match Form 17C Part I with Part II to ensure the number and integrity of votes.
The ECI has asserted that “the experience of litigations has revealed that the present system which includes a simultaneous audit by the candidates is necessary to ensure that frivolous and baseless allegations do not cloud the outcome of elections merely because they happen to be unsavoury”.
Introduction of a totaliser, it said, would “generate fresh anxieties, misgivings, and allegations regarding data integrity, machine tampering, and transmission glitches”.
The ECI has also submitted that it would “inevitably… make the counting process significantly opaque and more complex for grassroots polling agents and ordinary citizens to observe and verify”.
It has also referred to the questions raised on the integrity of EVMs, saying that “in such a climate, the introduction of a new and, as yet, legally unregulated mechanism such as the totaliser could give rise to fresh allegations and controversy, thereby further complicating public confidence in an already sensitive area of the electoral process”.
In a hearing on the petitions Tuesday, the Supreme Court asked the Union government to state its position on introducing a totaliser system for counting of the votes as well.
Also Read: Bengaluru to Lucknow, why urban centres are seeing high electoral roll deletions during SIR
The proposal
The ECI has told the Supreme Court that the concept of a totaliser was demonstrated to it by Bengaluru-based Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Hyderabad-based Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) in August 2007. Another demonstration was made before the ECI, its technical committee and officials of the Ministry of Law and Justice in November 2007.
The ECI had then made a proposal for introducing totalisers for counting of votes recorded in EVMs in November 2008, writing to the secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice. In the letter, ECI recommended amending the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 for this purpose.
This letter, attached with the ECI response, said that in the current system of counting of votes, the candidates and parties are able to know precisely the number of votes polled by them in each polling station covering a limited polling area.
“There have been complaints that such a situation can, in such cases, lead to post-election vindictive attitude/action against the electors of the area where candidates and parties have not fared well. This system can, in some cases, also give rise to pre-election intimidation of electors. Such complaints have been made to the commission from time to time, including the last Uttar Pradesh elections of 2007 when voters in certain dacoit-affected areas of the state brought this up,” the letter said.
It, therefore, asserted that the commission is of the view that there should be provisions in the rules enabling the counting of votes by mixing votes recorded in more than one polling station so as to not reveal candidate-wise votes polled in individual polling stations where the commission apprehends the possibility of any such intimidation or victimisation of electors.
In order to address the concern relating to Form 17C, the letter had said that before showing the consolidated result of counting, the totaliser will first show the total number of votes recorded in each EVM individually alongside the unique identification numbers of individual EVMs to ensure that the total votes in each EVM in that group tallies with the figures mentioned in the Part I of Form 17C, as maintained by the Presiding Officers at the respective polling stations.
It had pitched for appropriate amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to enable the use of such machines. After this letter, the proposal was reiterated by the ECI several times over the years.
What ECI says now
In its response filed in the Supreme Court, the ECI has pointed out that polling and counting is currently conducted in the presence of candidates and their agents. They are also provided with an opportunity to match Form 17C Part I, filled at the close of polling at the polling station, with Form 17C Part II, filled at the time of counting, to ensure there is no mismatch between this data. Candidates can also ask for counting of VVPAT slips in any polling station.
“In this system of counting, polling booth-wise distribution of votes in the election becomes known to the candidates and political parties that fielded their candidates from the concerned constituencies. However, this transparency of the mechanism is necessary to give credence to the outcome of the elections,” the ECI now says.
It submits that this knowledge of booth-level voting patterns may be utilised by some political parties to improve their outreach programme in booths where they have not performed as per their expectations and make organisational decisions accordingly, or may be used by others in “some vexatious manner”.
However, it asserts that the mere possibility of vexatious use of information may not be a sufficient justification to create a system where booth-wise information is “not shared with candidates or their agents with respect to their performance, and they are not able to confirm about the polling as well as counting process through the mechanism of Form 17C”.
The ECI has submitted that the introduction of a totaliser would “inevitably… heighten systemic friction at counting centres, where simplicity and immediate booth-level clarity are essential to maintain peace, order, and acceptance of the outcome”.
The ECI has, therefore, told the court that the introduction of a totaliser should involve a political consensus followed by introduction of suitable legislative changes “that deal with all concerns of all parties alike to ensure there is no scope of levelling baseless allegations on the electoral process which erodes the trust of the people from the working of their democracy”.
“Subsequently, comprehensive, systematic and multiple rounds of training of polling officials, stakeholders particularly, the counting staff and counting agent of the contesting candidates will need to be carried out by the Election Commission of India on a large scale. A nation-wide 360 degree multi-modal awareness and education campaign about the use of totaliser and its features and functioning must be carried out to inform, educate and orient the voters and various stakeholder particularly political parties, media. Etc. to instill sense of complete confidence and credibility in the Totaliser and to remove any misgivings and skepticism about a new electronic machine being introduced in the election framework,” it has submitted.
Also Read: How Supreme Court’s electoral crime verdict seeks to curb money power and political impunity
No legal provision
In its affidavit, the ECI has told the Court that there is no provision in the Constitution, Representation of the People Act, 1950, or the 1951 Act, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 for recognising, regulating or governing the use of a totaliser in the counting of votes.
It, therefore, asserts that since no legal right is being infringed by not using a totaliser, the petition should be dismissed on this ground itself. The response also submits that the introduction of totaliser machines would necessarily require substantive amendments to the law, and revision of the statutory procedure for the counting of votes.
“The implementation of totaliser, in the absence of a legal framework, without the underlying rules being first put in place would be premature and legally unsustainable,” it submits.
The ECI has also referred to two Supreme Court judgements passed in 2019 and 2024.
The 2019 judgement had directed the physical verification of VVPAT slips of five randomly-selected EVMs per Assembly constituency or Assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency. In the 2024 verdict, the court had rejected pleas seeking 100 percent verification of VVPAT slips, but allowed verification of the burnt memory semi-controller of 5 percent of EVMs per constituency in case a written request for the same is made by either of two runner-up candidates after the declaration of results, among other things.
The ECI has now said that the compliance of both these directives “necessarily presupposes the availability of votes cast and recorded on a distinct, booth-wise and machine-wise basis, so that particular EVMs/VVPATs required to be verified can be identified with certainty and their results independently traced”.
Trajectory of the totaliser
According to its affidavit, ECI’s proposal for using totalisers was referred to a Parliamentary Committee in 2009. After the Core Committee on Electoral Reforms constituted by the Ministry of Law and Justice did not take any view on the issue, the ECI requested the then law minister to consider the proposal in August 2013.
In the meantime, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 2014, for a direction to declare the results of elections for every constituency as a whole and to not declare results of every voting machine separately, “to preserve the right of privacy in voting”.
The Law Commission of India also endorsed the proposal in March 2015, in its 255th report, recommending amendments for the introduction of the machine.
In March 2016, the ECI held a meeting of all recognised national and state political parties to discuss, among other things, the use of a totaliser as well. However, the ECI has now told the apex court that three of six national parties and 18 out of 29 state parties (62 percent) have opposed the idea of a totaliser.
In September 2016, the central government constituted a team of ministers to examine the ECI’s proposal for introducing totalisers for counting of votes. However, this team disagreed with the proposal, claiming that the revelation of booth-wise voting patterns would have a beneficial effect in increasing developmental activities and helping parties improve their performance.
In December 2016, the ECI once again sent a set of 27 proposals to the government, one of which was introduction of totalisers for counting of votes.
In view of the petition filed in the court, the ECI set up a working group comprising Chief Election Officers of various states and Union Territories and ECI officers to analyse the technical aspects on the use of the totaliser.
“The aforesaid Working Group flagged various administrative, procedural, logistical and technical issues,” the ECI has now told the Supreme Court. However, it has not attached a copy of the Working Group’s report with its response
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)