Postponing the verdict in the VVPAT case: Election Commission officials appear and explain!
Postponing the verdict in the VVPAT case: election commission officials appear and explain!While the election commission officials appeared in person and gave their explanation in the VVPAT case, the judgment in the case has been adjourned without specifying a date. A case has been filed in the supreme court that the voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT - Voter-verified paper audit trail) should be counted 100 percent along with the votes recorded in the electronic voting machine. supreme court Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dibangar Dutta are sitting on this case. Accordingly, when the VVPAT case came up for hearing in the supreme court today, the supreme court rejected the request of the petitioners to disclose the details of the 'source code' of the voting machines. Also, “Is the Micro Control Unit mounted on the Control Unit or the Vivipad? Is the embedded microcontrol unit programmed once? How many units are there to upload election symbols? Is the control unit itself sealed? Or is the VVpad kept separate and protected?” The supreme court raised these 4 questions to the election Order and ordered the election commission officials to appear at 2 pm and give an explanation.Accordingly, election commission officials appeared and explained. “Both EVMs and VVPAT machines have separate controllers. Ballot machine, EVM, and VVPAT will be sealed after polling. This information will be preserved for 45 days. In the case of an election case, only the relevant apparatus will be preserved separately. The Control Unit, Ballot Unit, and VVPAT all have their microcontroller. These cannot be physically accessed. All microcontrollers are one-time programmable. They cannot be changed.” election commission officials explained to the supreme Court. Taking note of this, the supreme court adjourned the judgment of the case for 100 percent counting of the votes recorded in the electronic voting machine along with the acknowledgment slip showing who the voters voted for. While the case was listed today to seek some clarifications from the election commission, the supreme court adjourned the verdict stating that the replies had been received.