IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 970 of 2007(M)
1. KORANDIKKAVELIL MINI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KARPPUNKAL JOLY, W/O.SABU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.FIROZ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/09/2007
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN,J
================
W.P.(C).Nos.970,1097,1113,2821,2842 &
3043 of 2007
===========================
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed against the order of the
learned Munsiff trying election petitions whereby he directed the
parties to verify the documents in the presence of the Junior
Superintendent to verify the question of double voting. I am
afraid that the procedure adopted by the learned Munsiff is
incorrect. The learned counsel for the respondents would
contented that it was done as conceded by both sides. Whatever
it may be it is settled principle of law that secrecy of the ballot
has to be maintained as far as possible unless it is absolutely
necessary to reveal the identity. In a case of this nature where
double voting is the question involved the first fact to be
established is that a person’s name figures in two wards or two
constituencies. The second question to be considered is
regarding the identity of said person and that is the very same
person’s name that figures in both the voters list. The third
W.P.(C).Nos.970,1097,1113,2821,2842 &3043 of 2007
:2:
question to be considered is whether this person has voted in
both the wards or constituencies. The Law lays down that if a
person has voted in two wards or constituencies then the said
voting itself is void. So the learned Munsiff before proceeding
to determine the last question whether a person has voted in
two wards has to satisfy himself prim afacie whether that
person’s name figures in the voters list of two wards and also
regarding the identity of the person. When the court is prima
facie satisfied about the same then the last stage comes and it is
at that stage necessarily the ballot papers have to be verified,
checked with the counterfoil to find out whether the same
person had voted in two wards. So the court below is directed
to proceeded with the trial and after getting satisfied with the
evidence adduced that the same person’s name figures in two
wards and that his identity is established then proceed to the
next stage for finding out double voting by resorting to
verification of the ballot paper, signature etc. Needless to say
that if it is established that the same person has cast his votes in
two wards then under law it will be void. So the orders under
challenge are set aside and learned Munsiff is directed to follow
W.P.(C).Nos.970,1097,1113,2821,2842 &3043 of 2007
:3:
the procedure laid down in the previous Paragraph. Being an
election petition it is desirable to have an expeditious trial and
therefore the learned Munsiff is directed to dispose the matters
as expeditiously as possible and not later on three months from
today.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE
dvs