Examine the debate on EVM reliability in India in light of recent Supreme Court judgments. Is a return to paper ballots justified?

Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) have been used since 1982 [4]. Their legal basis is Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [3]. The debate over them came back in October 2026, when 42 former judges wrote an open letter. It said EVMs are "blamed only after defeat" while victories on the same machines go unquestioned [6]. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld EVMs, so the real question is how to improve them, not whether to drop them.

Supreme Court's evolving position

• A.C. Jose (1984): EVMs needed a statutory basis, and Section 61A followed [3].
• Subramanian Swamy v. ECI (2013): held a paper trail "indispensable" for free and fair elections and ordered phased roll-out of VVPAT [2].
• ADR v. ECI (2024): rejected paper ballots and 100% VVPAT counting. Losing candidates who finished 2nd or 3rd may seek verification of the burnt memory of 5% of EVMs per segment, at their own cost [1].

Concerns about reliability

• Low verifiability: the voter sees the VVPAT slip for only 7 seconds [4], and ordinary citizens cannot audit the software.
• Narrow, costly remedy: the candidate must pay for the memory check [1], which deters smaller parties.
• Trust deficit: "vote theft" claims spread at press conferences, but sworn declarations are seldom filed [6].

Case for EVMs

• Standalone machines, never connected to any network, made by public sector companies BEL and ECIL [4].
• Openness to testing: the ECI's 2017 EVM Challenge invited parties to show tampering [5].
• Judicial endorsement: the Court found existing safeguards robust [1].

Is a return to paper ballots justified? Largely, no.

• The paper-ballot era suffered from booth capturing, invalid votes and slow manual counting. Going back would bring these problems back rather than fix the trust deficit.
• The better route is stronger verifiability:
• statistically sound, larger VVPAT sampling;
• affordable memory checks;
• independent technical audits;
• publishing ECI's technical protocols.

In sum, the Court has kept EVMs and backed them with paper-trail safeguards. Their remaining weakness is how well people can check results, not how the machines perform. The way forward is greater transparency and sworn, evidence-based challenges in courts rather than press conferences. That would keep elections both efficient and trusted, in line with the free and fair elections guaranteed under Article 324 and SDG 16 (accountable institutions).