Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) governs motion of no-confidence. Sub-section (9A) thereof reads as follows:

“Election shall be by means of open ballot and the member who casts his vote shall write his name and affix his signature on the reverse side of the ballot paper.”

(Emphasis supplied)

2. The question raised is as to whether the vote of a member of a no-confidence motion will be invalid solely on the ground that he wrote his name and affixed his signature on the facing side of the ballot paper and not on its reverse side contrary to Section 157 (9A).

3. Ext.P2 minutes shows that the ballot paper has to be signed on its reverse and that otherwise the vote will be invalid, were among the instructions given by the President of the meeting to the members. Yet, petitioner, a literate, wrote down his name in Malayalam and affixed his signature on the facing page of the ballot paper. His vote has been treated as invalid.

4. The voting in the no-confidence motion is by open ballot. As of now, seven members have noted in support of the motion, whereas an equal number has voted against it. Therefore, the result of the no-confidence motion will depend upon the validity or otherwise of the vote of the petitioner, on the basis of this judgment.

5. The facts that the Ballot Paper No.03, the only invalid vote, which has been shown to me by the learned counsel appearing for the authorized officer, bears the signature of the petitioner as the voter and that it is not invalid on any other ground, are not in dispute.

6. The only question, therefore, is as to whether that vote is invalid merely by reason of the fact that the member (voter) wrote his name and affixed his signature on the facing page, instead of on its reverse.

7. Section 157 (9A) was introduced by Act 11 of 1999, namely, the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the “Anti-defection Act”, by which various provisions were made to prevent defection among members of local authorities in the State of Kerala and to provide for disqualification of the defecting members for being members of the local authorities. To achieve the said object, among other things, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 has been modified as provided for in the 1st Schedule to the Anti-defection Act.

8. The identify of the voter will have to be ascertained for the purpose of knowing whether he has acted in any manner violating the Anti-defection Act. The object of Section 157(9A) is to ascertain the identity of the member who has cast the vote using the particular ballot paper. The intention in providing that he shall write his name and affix his signature on the reverse side of the ballot paper is only to ensure that by his doing so on the facing page, the other relevant materials and markings which are to be made available on the facing page shall not be defaced.

9. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in S. Sivaswami v. Malaikannan and others (A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1293) wherein it was held that the rejection of ballot papers should not be made if marking on ballot paper is indicative of identity of the candidate for whom vote is cast. That decision was rendered construing Rule 39(2)(b) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The purpose of the marking in the ballot paper in such an election is that the voter ought to indicate with clarity the identity of the candidate. In that context, their Lordships held that

“the essence of the principle incorporated in the rule is that so long as the ballot paper bears a mark made with the instrument supplied for the purpose, the ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid, if it is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the marking as to the identity of the candidate in favour of whom the vote had been given. In this context it is necessary to remember that nearly 90% of the electorate in this country consis