IMPORTANT POINT
The intention of the voter in marking a ballot is paramount, and votes cannot be invalidated solely due to non-compliance with specific marking guidelines if the intention is clear.

JUDGMENT :

(ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.)

The petitioner is the elected member of Manimala Grama Panchayat from Ward No.13. The petitioner was also elected as Chairperson for the Standing Committee for Welfare of the said Grama Panchayat. As per Ext.P1, the 4^th respondent moved a motion of no confidence against him. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent, the returning officer convened a special meeting of the members to consider the said no confidence motion.

2. After the discussions, the no confidence motion was put to vote. The ballot papers were supplied to the parties and the petitioner. The said ballot paper contains two columns, one to oppose the no confidence motion and other one to support the no confidence motion. The petitioner marked ‘X’ in the corresponding column intended to oppose the no-confidence motion, whereas the 5^th respondent wrote in the corresponding column for supporting the motion as, “supporting the no confidence motion”. On the other hand, the 4th respondent put a ‘√’ mark on the corresponding column to support the no confidence motion. The petitioner immediately raised an objection to the effect that, the marking of the votes on the ballot made by the 4^th and 5^th respondents were not in tune with the requirements contemplated in Ext.P2 guidelines specified by the Election Commission in this regard. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 contemplates for putting an ‘X’ mark for casting the vote, and since the same was not followed by the 4^th and 5^th respondents, the votes of the said respondents cannot be treated as valid.

3. Since a dispute has been raised in this regard, the publication of result was put on hold and a clarification was sought by the 2^nd respondent from the 1^st respondent. In response to the same, Ext.P5 was issued by the 1^st respondent Election Commission, wherein it was ordered that, the decision has to be taken by the 2^nd respondent taking note of the intention of the voters as reflected from the ballot papers. Accordingly, Ext.P6 notice was issued by the 2^nd respondent publishing the results of the no confidence motion by which the no confidence motion was declared as passed. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Exts.P5 and P6 communications.

4. Heard Sri.Abesh Alosious, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Deepu Lal Mohan, learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission and Sri.Adhil P., standing counsel for the Manimala Grama Panchayat.

5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly placing reliance on Ext.P2 guidelines issued by the 1^st respondent, wherein it was directed that the voting has to be made by putting an ‘X’ mark on the ballot paper. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 1^st respondent submits that, as far as Ext.P2 is concerned, the same is issued as a guideline to follow a uniform pattern and it was not intended to invalidate any vote, merely because of the reason that the marking of the vote was not made in the manner as mentioned in Ext.P2, so long as the intention of the voter is clear from the ballot paper.

6. The learned standing counsel brought the attention of this Court to Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000, in which Rules 11 and 15 deal with the manner of election of the Chairman and the manner of voting for expressing no confidence on the Chairman, respectively. On carefully going through the statutory stipulations, it is seen that, Rule 15(9) contemplates for putting the no-confidence motion to vote, after the discussion on the confidence motion is over and as per Rule 9(a), which is introduced by way of an amendment as per notification dated 20.05.2022, the voter has to put his signature and name, on the reverse side of the ballot paper. There is no stipulation with regard to the marking of the vote. On the other hand, Rule 11, which deals with the manner of election of the Chairman, in Sub Rule (5) thereof, it is specifically mentioned that the vote has to be marked b