The Kerala High Court recently dismissed an election petition related to the 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly elections for the Perinthalmanna constituency, filed by K.P. Mohammed Mustafa of the Left Democratic Front (LDF). The petition was against Najeeb Kanthapuram, the United Democratic Front (UDF) candidate, who won by a margin of 38 votes. Mustafa contested the rejection of 348 postal ballots, arguing that these were improperly disqualified, impacting the election's outcome.
Justice C.S. Sudha, delivering the verdict, emphasized that the right to elect or be elected is not a fundamental or common law right but rather a statutory creation, subject to the limitations set by relevant legislation. The court underscored that election disputes are bound by strict legal frameworks, and principles of common law or equity cannot be applied in such matters. The entire election process, from the issuance of notifications to the resolution of disputes, is governed by the Representation of People Act and related rules.
Mustafa's petition highlighted the improper rejection of postal ballots from absentee voters, including senior citizens, physically disabled individuals, and those affected by COVID-19. The rejected ballots were disqualified for reasons such as missing or improperly filled declarations, incorrect serial numbers, and unsealed covers. Mustafa argued that these rejections violated the guidelines issued by the Election Commission for absentee voting.
The court, however, found that the rejection of these ballots was in line with Rule 54A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which mandates the disqualification of ballots with defects in the Form 13A declaration or discrepancies between the serial numbers in Form 13A and Form 13B. The court noted that the returning officer had no discretion in this matter and had to reject the ballots as required by the rules.
Mustafa's claim that the polling officers had violated the Election Commission's guidelines by filling out the forms themselves was also dismissed. The court ruled that the guidelines do not explicitly prohibit such actions, and there was no evidence to suggest that the officers acted against the wishes of the voters or compromised voter privacy.
The court concluded that even if the 32 ballots, which were rejected for reasons not explicitly covered by Rule 54A, were counted in Mustafa's favor, it would not have altered the election result. Kanthapuram would still have won by a margin of six votes. As such, the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the election result in favor of Kanthapuram.
This ruling reinforces the principle that election-related rights are statutory, and any disputes arising from the election process must be resolved strictly within the bounds of the law. The court's decision also highlights the importance of following procedural rules in the conduct of elections and the limited scope of judicial intervention in election disputes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.