PAREED PILLAY
Santhigiri Ashram – Appellant
Versus
Tahsildar – Respondent
Petitioners seek writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to permit them to cast their votes in the ensuing General Elections in Kerala. First petitioner is Santhigiri Ashram and petitioners 2 to 135 are
its inmates.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that when the draft voters' list was published their names were found omitted, that they immediately filed applications in Form No.6 requesting for inclusion of their names in the voters 'list, that the first respondent issued a notice dated 23-3-1991 requiring them to appear before him on 30-3-1991 and that on account of the tension prevailing in the locality they could not do so. On knowing that their applications for inclusion of their names in the amended list were rejected by the first respondent they filed appeals before the second respondent. Petitioners contend that they could not appear before the first respondent on account of the prevailing tension and disorderly situation in the locality and as they apprehended danger to life.
3. Petitioners submitted that they may be allowed to exercise their franchise at least with some conditions imposed. Suggestion is that their ballot papers may be kept in a separate
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.