Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Election Tribunal (Munsiff, North Paravur) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner has filed Ext.P1 election petition as O.P.(Ele) No.8/2015 before the Munsiff Court, North Paravur challenging election of the first respondent to Ward No.11 of Muppathadam North of Kadungallur grama panchayat held on 5.11.2015. The case of the petitioner was that there were double voting and he had narrated the number of such persons, who had exercised vote in both the constituencies so as to make their votes invalid under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In order to ascertain the same, he filed I.A.No.707/2016 before the court below for directing the District Election Officer to produce certain documents including electoral rolls, vote register, voting machine, result sheet etc. Learned Munsiff by the impugned order allowed the petition in part directing production of the electoral rolls, voters list, result sheet etc, but denied the prayer for producing electronic voting machine. This order is being challenged by the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri. P. Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Paulose, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 remained absent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without getting electronic voting machine, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the persons alleged to have voted twice had exercised their franchise.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if the electronic voting machine is brought, privacy of the voting will be affected and that is not expected to be exposed.

6. The case of the petitioner in the election petition was that there was double voting and if those votes are excluded, he is likely to be declared as elected in the election. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, if the voters list, vote register and other documents with the election officer are summoned, it will be sufficient to find out whether these people had voted in two places or not and that will not be sufficient for the disposal of the case. But I am afraid, that will only shows that these persons have voted in two places, if at all evidence is adduced in this regard. In whose favour they have exercised their votes can be seen only by verification of the electronic voting machines. Earlier these things were examined by examination of ballot papers available in secret manner. But now this is being done by mechanical methods by using electronic voting machine. Only on verification of the electronic voting machine by scientific method by decoding data available in the machine, these facts can be proved for which electronic voting machines are required. It is not necessary to produce those machines before this court for the time being as it will be difficult for the court to keep it in a proper manner. After completing oral evidence, if the court wants those machines at the time of trial, that will be required for the purpose of confronting the witnesses who are examined to prove the above facts. So instead of producing electronic machines for the time being, the petition can be allowed by giving a direction to the District Election Officer, in whose custody these electronic machines are now to produce the same at the time of trial and assist the court with the scientific method of decoding the data available in the concerned electronic machines alone will be sufficient and that will be meet the ends of justice. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

The order declining to summon electronic voting machine by the court below is set aside and the prayer is allowed by giving a direction to the District Election Officer, in whose custody these electronic machines are kept, to produce the same and help the court to decode the data available in those electronic voting machines which are required for the purpose of ascertaining the persons, who alleged to have exercised double voting and give evidence regarding these aspects at the time of trial when they are directed to be produced. Till then the District Election Officer who is in custody of the machine is directed to keep the same in good condition without losing the data available in the voting machines. The court below is directed to issue a direction in this regard to the concerned officer immediately.