Point of Law: Rule 11(7) stipulates that if ballot paper does not contain mark ‘X’ against name of any candidate, vote shall be rejected.

JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

1. The question for resolution in this writ petition is whether a candidate has cast his vote for himself in the elections to the Chairman of a Standing Committee to a local authority. Seldom do we come across instances when uncertainty looms over the candidate’s own vote. This is such an occasion when the opposite candidate alleges that his opponent had not voted for himself.

2. Petitioner and the 6th respondent are Councillors of Cochin Corporation. Both of them are Standing Committee Members for Education and Sports (for short ‘the Standing Committee’). Election to the post of Chairman of the Standing Committee was scheduled to be held on 09.05.2023. Petitioner and 6th respondent were the nominated candidates of the UDF and the LDF, respectively, for the aforesaid election. As per Rule 11 of the the Kerala Municipality Standing Committee Rules, 2000 (for short ‘the Rules’) a member has to cast his vote by putting the alphabet ‘X’ on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate whom he intends to vote and thereafter must put a signature and write his name on the reverse side of the ballot paper.

3. At the election, one member abstained, and the balance was eight out of the nine members who were eligible to vote. During the counting of votes, the Returning Officer rejected the vote cast by one voter. Thus, the total number of votes counted was 7. The 6th respondent was declared as the elected candidate as he secured 4 votes. Petitioner contends that the 6th respondent had not cast his vote in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore, his vote ought to have been declared invalid. Though, according to the petitioner, objections were raised at the venue of the counting itself, the 2nd respondent refused to accede to the objection and declared the 6th respondent as duly elected. Subsequently, this writ petition has been preferred after obtaining copies of the ballot papers under the RTI Act.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent pointing out that the alphabet ‘X’ had been put against his own name in the ballot paper and that since there are no other marks, the vote should be treated as valid. It was pleaded that there was only one ‘X’ mark on the ballot paper in dispute and that was in the column relating to the 6th respondent himself.

5. I have heard Sri. D. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Deepulal Mohan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Returning Officer and Sri. P.K. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.

6. The issue revolves around whether the 6th respondent had cast a valid vote as prescribed by the Rules. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to extract Rule 11 sub clauses (5) and (7) of the Rules, which read as follows:

“11. Manner of Election of Chairman:

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

(5) Each member shall, immediately on receipt of the ballot paper, proceed to the place set apart for voting and vote putting the mark ‘X’ on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate for whom he intends to vote and after putting his signature and writing his name on the reverse of the ballot paper, put it into the ballot box kept in a place visible to the returning officer

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

(7) The ballot paper that does not contain the mark ‘X’ against the name of any of the candidates or that contains the mark ‘X’ against more than one name or that does not bear on the reverse, the name and signature of the member who marked the vote shall be rejected and the rejected ballot papers shall be kept in separate cover.”

7. The ballot paper has been produced as Exhibit P4. Pursuant to directions, the original ballot paper was produced by the learned Standing Counsel in a sealed cover. The ballot papers were perused by all the counsel as well as the Court and was returned to the Standing Counsel itself.

8. There were two candidates at the election for the Chairman of the Standing Committee, of which one was