New Delhi, Sept. 2 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre why a "totaliser" mechanism, which can mask booth-wise voting patterns during counting of votes cast through EVMs, cannot be introduced, observing that anonymisation of voting patterns could in certain cases help protect voters from intimidation and victimisation. A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said the mechanism could, in principle, be an "enabler" of voter privacy and sought a specific response from the Union government on the impediments, if any, to introducing a provision similar to Rule 59A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for EVM counting. Section 59A presently provides for mixing of ballot papers in circumstances where the returning officer apprehends intimidation and victimisation of electors. "On principle, totaliser might be an enabler and good for anonymisation of voters," observed the bench during a hearing on a clutch of petitions seeking directions for introduction of the mechanism. The court, however, recognised that such a move would require amendments to the election rules and statutory backing, which the Centre could undertake only. The Election Commission of India (ECI) told the bench that it had filed an affidavit stating that political parties opposed the introduction of the totaliser. Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the ECI, said the Commission could only make a recommendation and the Union government would have to process it and bring in the necessary amendments. The bench, however, questioned why the issue could not be reconsidered nearly a decade after the Centre rejected the proposal. "They rejected it in 2016. Perhaps, they can have a re-look now -- ten years later," said the bench. The totaliser is a mechanism that allows votes recorded in multiple EVMs to be counted together, thereby preventing the disclosure of results from individual polling stations. Under the proposal considered by the ECI and the Law Commission, votes from 14 EVMs can be aggregated and announced together rather than revealing the result of each polling station. At present, EVM votes are counted polling-station wise. This enables candidates and political parties to ascertain the voting preferences of individual booths or localities and, petitioners have argued, can leave voters vulnerable to intimidation, discrimination or post-poll retaliation. The issue assumes significance because, unlike ballot papers which could be mixed before counting in certain circumstances, EVMs currently do not provide for such anonymisation of votes at the counting stage. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, argued that the legal safeguard available when ballot papers were used could be replicated for EVMs. He said complaints had been made that political parties threatened voters with consequences such as disruption of electricity supplies if they did not vote for them. The bench said the petitioners were effectively seeking a mandamus to compel the ECI to introduce the totaliser, but questioned what the court could direct unless the measure was demonstrably in the public interest or advanced transparency and fairness in elections. "If they want to introduce, they can introduce but you want a mandamus from this court to direct the ECI. How can we? We can direct them only if we find it in the public interest or in the interest of democracy such as transparency or fairness.what is the gain out of this?" asked the bench. The court, however, appeared receptive to the argument that the mechanism could have a specific protective purpose in areas where voters face the risk of retaliation. The bench said that while a general rule requiring totalisation might have wider implications, the ECI's existing powers could potentially be used in cases where there was a "perceptible ground reality of victimisation". "When it comes to a general rule of totalisation, your own rules allow it. When there is a perceptible ground reality of victimisation, you should empower your client to use that power under Section 59A that you could use for ballot papers. You can use this power in very grave cases," it told the ECI. The Supreme Court asked the Centre to explain why a similar provision could not be incorporated for votes cast through EVMs. "Let the Union of India file a specific affidavit why a rule akin to Rule 59A of Conduct of Election Rules be not incorporated for the counting of votes cast through EVMs," said the court in its order, pointing out that the Law Commission had already proposed a draft rule on the issue in its 255th report. The Law Commission, in its March 2015 report on electoral reforms, had endorsed the ECI's proposal for introducing a totaliser. It said that counting votes from a group of EVMs together would increase secrecy during counting by preventing disclosure of voting patterns and address fears of intimidation and victimisation....