Naidu submitted that the EC can only recommend, and it is up to the Central government to make the rules in consultation with the EC.The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre’s views on using a totaliser for counting of votes in clusters recorded in EVMs to ensure voter privacy and prevent their victimisation as opposed to the current mechanism of booth-wise counting.A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant sought to know if suitable changes could be made to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961, which allows this in the counting of paper ballots, so that it covers EVMs too.The bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing petitions seeking direction to the EC to declare results for an entire parliamentary constituency instead of revealing booth-wise figures.Totaliser is a device which allows votes cast in about 14 polling booths to be counted together.Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, said implementing the totaliser mechanism would help save lives by preventing post-poll violence.He submitted that most post-poll violence occurs because the parties get to know how many votes they got from a particular booth but with totaliser use no one will be able to know that. Using totaliser will be in the interest of voters and will help democracy, he submitted.Referring to a January 2018 SC order, he said that the EC had backed the introduction of totaliser but had changed its views since. The Law Commission too had proposed this, he said.Story continues below this adAppearing for the Commission, Senior Advocate DS Naidu said the Commission had convened an all-party meeting on it. “50% national parties opposed, 68% state-level parties opposed. It was then referred to a Group of Ministers, they also opposed,” he submitted. “On the political front, there is a big no,” he submitted.Justice Bagchi said that while totalization was, in principle, a tool for anonymising voter choice, it did not have statutory backing. “The difficulty is… let’s say we pass an order, they will need statutory backing.”He said that the EC had not said it does not approve the totaliser. “You have pointed out roadblocks in totalisation.”Naidu said that in the affidavit filed by it, the poll body had pointed out the advantages and difficulties.Story continues below this adAppearing for another petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said the “only argument of political parties is (that) we as political parties have to go to each polling booth and manage the polling booth”.He said that “it can’t be the reason (why totaliser should not be implemented), when voters face intimidation and don’t want to be targeted because in that polling booth all of you have voted for party A as against party B. This is to protect voters which is why the Law Commission and the EC and the ministry itself in 2010 had recommended this”.Naidu submitted that the EC can only recommend, and it is up to the Central government to make the rules in consultation with the EC.Justice Bagchi wondered if it cannot be used “in a situation where there is a perceptible ground reality of victimisation”.Story continues below this adNaidu said the Law Commission had said “use it selectively”.In its affidavit, the Commission while underlining the absence of a statutory provision to introduce it also pointed out that it would affect the existing audit mechanism built around Form 17C, which deals with the statutory record of votes polled, and is maintained in two parts under the Conduct of Election Rules.It said that when votes are counted in clusters, any discrepancy in one of the clubbed EVMs “would stand concealed within the aggregate figure”.