The INDIA opposition bloc has launched a new attack on the Election Commission, calling for the restoration of pre-Special Intensive Revision electoral rolls, more transparency in roll additions and deletions, and most impressively, a switch back to paper ballots from Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

On September 30, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge at a meeting of 19 Opposition parties in New Delhi said that the controversy has "escaped the pale of the normal differences in the electoral procedure". The Opposition says the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has created a risk that genuine voters are being removed from the rolls. Though this is an Opposition claim, Kharge has stated that 13.3 crore names have been removed.

Electoral rolls are expected to vary. Individuals pass away, relocate, change constituencies, get eligible or fix their records. The question is more whether the names were deleted or whether all of their deletions were lawful, traceable and contestable, and whether eligible citizens had a reasonable chance to stay on the rolls.

Here is where the ongoing debate is more impactful than another political debate about EVMs. In recent developments, it has come to light that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised internal issues on various issues related to the voter-list administration and procedures on several occasions. The Election Commission has been dismissing claims of institutional meltdowns, stating that decisions on SIR rollout were unanimous. It has also stepped into assess aspects of its voter-roll software and changed its voter-verification procedures for voters whose records need extra verification.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider a petition challenging the operations of the CEC and the constitutionality of SIR's procedures. This does not necessarily affirm the Opposition's claims it simply brings the controversy into the judicial arena where the political rhetoric will have to engage with the documents and the constitution.

The general election of 2024 in India involved over 96.88 crore registered electors, the highest in the world. This level of voting is not only a democratic effort it's a global recurring logistics challenge!

The Election Commission stated that M3 electronic voting system is made in the country by Bharat Electronics and Electronics Corporation of India. It estimates cumulative procurement amount spent for M3 EVMs and VVPATs to be approximately ₹9,483 crore across various procurement cycles. The cost of a ballot unit is around ₹7,991, control unit is ₹9,812 and VVPAT is about ₹16,132, and the machines are expected to have an economic life of 15 years.

Changing the system to using paper ballots nationwide would result in the high cost of printing hundreds of millions of ballots, transporting ballots, ballot boxes, storing ballots, enlarging counting and hiring more personnel. The Election Commission believes that the upfront capital expenditure of EVMs will be compensated for by the savings on printing, logistics, storage and counting staff.

Nor does the judicial history suggest paper ballots have been proven to be intrinsically more reliable. The Supreme Court, in April 2024, declined to restore paper ballots and cross verification of 100 per cent EVM-VVPAT. The court, after reviewing technical and administrative protection, concluded it did not find the matter before it to be evidence of manipulation. It did, however, improve the post-election protections, such as in relation to symbol loading units and a candidate's request to see a set percentage of machines verified.

That history makes the Opposition's strongest case today not that all the EVMs are suspect, but that it is calling for an electoral architecture whose records will withstand hostile scrutiny.

This is an important difference. A democracy cannot survive on accusations; and neither can its institutions expect any confidence if they have been demanded.

In addition, there's a cost to institutional distrust that rarely makes its way to the political conversation. India is battling for foreign investors and transforming itself into a bigger manufacturing, technology and financial hub of the world. Political security, regulatory security and institutional security are factors which investors take into account for their long-term choices. When accusations come and go, and when they are eventually found to be groundless, it causes a certain amount of reputational noise in an election system.

Make deletion and addition information accessible to both political parties and researchers and citizens. Ensure that electoral data and records are kept in an auditable manner. Inform voters of their names being removed and provide a viable process to appeal it. Permit credible independent technological examination, if legally allowed. If there is a claim of manipulation, then provide proof, not slogans.

The same applies to the Opposition. The allegations of “vote theft” are explosive and should not be treated as a fact unless there is proof that there were irregularities in the voting which are the direct, deliberate consequences of efforts to manipulate an election result. A recent report on SIR deletions said that there was no constituency level relationship between deletions and electoral outcomes, with deaths and migration adding to the changes.

Thus for India there are two risks: the real administrative weakness being written off as the political din, and political claims becoming public opinion without being substantiated by evidence.

There is no need for blind faith in EVMs, blind faith in the Election Commission, and blind faith in accusations against either. It requires something much better: a mechanism that allows every genuine Indian to be registered on the electoral rolls, stay on the electoral rolls until he or she is legally removed, cast one vote and have the vote counted only once.