The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to clarify its stance on amending election regulations to introduce totaliser machines for counting electronic votes in clusters, a mechanism intended to preserve voter secrecy and prevent post-election victimisation.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana asked whether the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961—which currently allows cluster counting for paper ballots—could be expanded to encompass Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The bench was addressing a batch of petitions demanding that the Election Commission of India publish consolidated constituency-wide results rather than disclosing booth-by-booth vote breakdowns.
A totaliser is a technical device that connects to multiple EVMs, allowing ballots recorded across approximately 14 polling booths to be tallied simultaneously without revealing the individual booth tallies.
Arguments Over Voter Privacy and Post-Poll Violence
Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that masking booth-level voting patterns would save lives by eliminating the root cause of post-poll violence. Upadhyay submitted that political parties often target specific neighbourhoods after discovering unfavourable booth returns, whereas totalisers would obscure these micro-trends to protect voters and strengthen democratic processes. He noted that the Law Commission had previously recommended totalisers and that the poll panel had also supported the technology in a January 2018 Supreme Court order before altering its position.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing another petitioner, contended that political parties resist the system primarily because they rely on booth-level data to oversee booth management operations. Sankaranarayanan argued that party convenience cannot supersede voter security, especially when electors risk retribution and intimidation for voting against specific candidates. He added that the Law Commission, the Election Commission, and the concerned ministry had supported the measure as far back as 2010.
Political Resistance and Legislative Limitations
Appearing on behalf of the Election Commission, senior advocate DS Naidu submitted that the poll panel had held an all-party consultation on the matter, during which 50 percent of national parties and 68 percent of state-level parties opposed the device. A subsequent Group of Ministers also rejected the proposal, demonstrating widespread political opposition. Naidu emphasised that rule-making powers rest with the Central government in consultation with the Commission, leaving the poll body able only to make recommendations.
During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi observed that while totalisation effectively anonymises voter choice in principle, any judicial directive would require statutory backing that currently does not exist. While noting that the Election Commission had highlighted technical and legal hurdles rather than an outright rejection of the concept, Justice Bagchi questioned whether totalisers could be deployed selectively in regions where ground realities demonstrate clear voter victimisation. Naidu responded that the Law Commission had similarly recommended selective implementation.
Impact on Statutory Audit and Form 17C
In its formal affidavit, the Election Commission outlined operational difficulties alongside the lack of statutory provisions. The Commission stated that cluster counting would disrupt the established verification framework centred on Form 17C, which serves as the statutory record of votes cast and is maintained in two distinct parts under the Conduct of Elections Rules.
The poll body cautioned that tallying votes in batches would undermine accountability, as any numerical discrepancy originating from a single EVM would remain concealed within the broader aggregate figure.
