Back
1982 Supreme(Ker) 96
Judges : SUKUMARAN
K.C.MATHEW - Appellant
Versus
ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 3356 of 1982
Decided On : 05/17/1982
Advocates Appeared :
S. Easwara Iyer; For Petitioner C. M. Devan; For 1st Respondent T.K. Nambiar; For Respondents 2 & 3
The judgment establishes the principle that courts may refrain from interfering in electoral matters under Art.329(b) of the Constitution, and may decline to exercise discretionary power under Art.226, especially when the election process may be disrupted and there are no voter grievances.
Headnote:
Election Commission - Introduction of Electronic Voting Machines - S.59 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, R.33, 38, 39 - The court discussed the legality of the introduction of electronic voting machines for the first time in the Parur Constituency. The Election Commission's direction under Art.324 of the Constitution was challenged, alleging violation of S.59 of the Act and R.33, 38, 39. The court examined the maintainability of the writ petition, violation of election rules, and the exercise of discretionary power under Art.226.
Fact of the Case:
The Election Commission introduced electronic voting machines for the first time in the Parur Constituency. The petitioner challenged the introduction, alleging poor quality of the machines and lack of a method to check the correctness of the results. The petitioner also raised objections regarding the possibility of manipulation and non-compliance with election rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was barred under Art.329(b) of the Constitution, which prohibits interference by courts in electoral matters. The court also refrained from expressing views on the alleged violation of election rules and declined to exercise discretionary power under Art.226 to entertain the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the writ petition under Art.329(b), the alleged violation of S.59 of the Act and R.33, 38, 39, and the exercise of discretionary power under Art.226.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was barred under Art.329(b) and declined to entertain the petition under Art.226, citing potential disruption of the election process and lack of voter grievances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that it was barred under Art.329(b) and declined to exercise discretionary power under Art.226.
1. Kerala State goes to polls, for the eighth time, on 19th May, 1982. The Election Commission appears to have announced on 8-4-1982 its decision to hold the elections in this State. The election process commenced with the Governor's notification issued in that behalf on 12-4-1982. Parur-referred to by the Election Commission as'70 Parur L.A. Constituency'- is one among the Constituencies in which the electorate will exercise their franchise. Shri Sivan Pillai is one of the candidates contesting from that Constituency. He belongs to the Communist Party of India. Another candidate is Shri A.C. Jose, described by the petitioner as 'belonging to the Indian National Congress (Antony Group)'.
2. The petition states in Para.4:
"The United Democratic Front which has sponsored the candidature of Shri A. C. Jose consists of the Indian National Congress (I) which is the ruling party at the Centre apart from other political parties in the State".
3. The Election Commission, apparently, does not recognise one Front or the other. In its counter-affidavit it states:
..........the Election Commission does not recognise any front known as United Democratic Front under the Election Symbols Order. The Commissioner is concerned only with the recognised national and state parties. This respondent is not concerned with nor has he anything to do with the setting up of the official candidate of the United Democratic Front which includes the Indian National Congress (I) which is the ruling party at the Centre."
4. The Parur Constituency is to witness what may be said to be a pioneering attempt in the voting mechanism in elections. It is the legality of that innovation that is challenged in the writ petition, the petitioner being the Chief Election Agent of the candidate, Shri Sivan Pillai, and the three respondents being respectively, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer.
5. The Election Commission, it is claimed, has evolved and designed this electronic voting machine. The machine consists of two units: one the control unit operated by the Presiding Officer and kept in the presence of the Agents of the Candidates; the other, the balloting unit. The sequence of operation, is given in these words by the Commission in its counter affidavit:
"13. (b) The presiding officer presses a button enabling the balloting unit so that one voter can enter and cast one vote. As soon as the presiding officer presses his button a busy lamp comes on in the controlling unit which can be seen by the agents who are present. When the votor enters and casts his vote by pressing the button there is a distinct 'Peep' sound in the control unit which can be heard by the agents present. At the same time the busy lamp goes off indicating that one vote has been cast. In the balloting unit while the button is pressed by the voter the red light against the name and the symbol of the candidate also appears indicating to the voter that his vote has been registered for that candidate. Therefore, it can be seen that manipulation in any manner by a presiding officer to cast multiple votes is completely ruled out. as all the operations of the Presiding Officer are done in front of the agents and for every vote cast there is a corresponding 'Peep' sound in addition to the cross verification possible by checking the total number of votes polled so far at any point of time."
6. Fifty such machines are to be used in about one hundred of the booths in this Constituency. The instructions on how to vote on the electronic voting machine are given (in both languages, English and Malayalam) in the pamphlet issued by the Election Commission and produced by the petitioner as Ext. P3 along with the Original Petition. A pictorial representation of the act of recording vote on the machine is also given therein. The instructions are:
"As usual identify yourself to the Presiding officer of your booth.
He will be having a small electronic machine in fron
