The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a writ petition seeking an independent audit of the source code governing the entire Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) system.
A ‘source code’ is a set of written instructions to a machine’s hardware. It provides a virtual window into the inner workings and processes of an electronic device.
Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, advocate Sunil Ahya, who was the petitioner-in-person, said the source code was the “brain of an electronic machine”.
Also Read: SC to consider plea seeking cross verification of EVM vote count with VVPAT
“An independent auditing public body which can view such a human-readable set of written instructions [source code] would ensure confidence that these processes would run exactly as intended and exclude the possibility of concealed [Trojan] code beyond the prescribed Software Requirement Specifications [SRS],” the petitioner argued.
IEEE 1028 standard
Mr. Ahya submitted that the independent audit should be undertaken by applying the IEEE 1028 standard. This is a well-established standard for software reviews and audits fixed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the world’s largest technical professional organisation.
“Since the ‘EVM System’ has been adopted as a method to exercise the democratic franchise, it is of central concern for all the citizens that its integrity is beyond any slightest shadow of doubt, lest it affect the democratic rights of the citizens and be a cause of concern for national security,” the petition said.
He said a technical audit by the manufacturers of the EVM system was not transparent enough. In fact, the manufacturers too should be audited by an independent body.
The Supreme Court, however, said the Election Commission of India (ECI) was constitutionally entrusted with the superintendence and control of the polls.
The petitioner has not provided any material to show that the ECI was in breach of its constitutional mandate. The Bench said it was not inclined to pass any directions on the petition which concerned a “policy issue”
“Ultimately, the manner in which the source code ought to be audited and whether the audit should be placed in the public domain bears on sensitive issues pertaining to the integrity of the election process which are conducted under the superintendence of the ECI. On such a policy issue, we are not inclined to pass directions sought by the petitioner… We are not inclined to entertain the petition,” the court recorded in its order.
