The amendment imposing a 'uniform' ballot paper in cooperative society elections is found unconstitutional as it impedes democratic participation for illiterate voters.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the names of the candidates, who contested the election to the managing committee of the petitioner’s society, are not being printed in different colours on the ballot paper as done hitherto.

2. The petitioner society alleges that it has 12000 members, out of whom 30% are illiterate, 20% belong to scheduled caste and 2 belong to the scheduled tribes. About 1000 members belong to Tamil chettiyar community who speak only Tamil language. The election to the society was notified and scheduled to be held on 29/07/2012. While conducting election to the managing committee of a cooperative society, symbols are not allotted to the candidates. Instead, the name of the candidates are printed in different colours, so that the illiterate voters would identify the candidates they choose on the basis of the colour in which the name of the candidates are printed in the ballot paper. This was the practice hitherto followed.

3. The petitioner alleges that following the aforesaid practice, it requested the Assistant Register to allot colours to the candidates. However, the Assistant Register rejected the application relying on the Circular No. 02/2011 which was issued in the light of R.35A (n)(vii) of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules which was amended in 2010. In the rules which originally stood, the word ‘uniform’ was not there and, therefore, the society was able to print the names of the candidates in different colours for identifying the candidates. The word ‘uniform’ was added as per SRO 1005/2010 dated 2/2010. The petitioner points out that because of the amendment, the illiterate members of the co - operative society are incapacitated to democratically elect candidates to the board of directors of the co - operative society. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the word ‘uniform’ is unconstitutional, undemocratic and is liable to be interfered with.

4. In the statement filed by the 4th respondent, they have admitted that before the amendment, there was a practice of printing the names of the candidates in different colours, who belong to different political parties. However, there were complaints from the voters against the use of colours in the ballot paper. It was also pointed out that if the ballot papers are printed in colour, the letters would not be clear. Therefore, they justified their stand in printing the ballot paper in black and white.

5. Arguments have been heard.

6. Admittedly, there is no practice of allotting any symbol to the candidates, who contest the election to the managing committee of the societies. It is an admitted fact that each political party or coalition of political parties would be projecting a panel. The practice hitherto followed was to print the names of the candidates belonging to a particular political party or a coalition in a particular colour so that the voters can easily identify them. In the absence of a symbol, this was the most practical method that could be followed.

7. In this case, the petitioner society is located in an area where a number of people belong to the State of Tamil Nadu, who does not know Malayalam. Therefore, most of the members of the petitioner society identify the candidates on the basis of the colours in which the name of the candidates are printed. If all the names in the ballot paper are printed in black and white, it may not be possible for all the voters to identify the candidates.

8. It was submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that by inserting the word ‘uniform’ in Clause 6(n)(viii) of R.35 A of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules, the practice of printing the names of candidates in different col