KUNDATHIL JANARDHANAN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of Writ Petitions raise essentially common questions.

(2.) IN most of the cases, the petitioners are candidates in the forthcoming election to the Local Bodies scheduled to be held on 23.10.2010 and 25.10.2010. IN a few cases, the petitioners are agents of the candidates. One of the petitioners is a UDF Chairman. Petitioners have approached this Court apprehending that the elections to the Local Bodies will not be conducted in a free and fair manner. Various types of allegations have been raised. IN some of the Writ Petitions, allegations are fairly general. IN some other Writ Petitions, allegations are more specific. The allegations in many cases are to the effect that the polling stations are sensitive. The reliefs which have been sought in these Writ Petitions essentially are to grant police protection to the candidates, to their agents and also for the voters, so that the election is held in a free and fair manner. IN many of the Writ Petitions, there is a prayer that the Election Commission Officials may be directed to videograph the electoral process in their polling stations.

(3.) PER contra, the learned standing counsel for the Commission would submit that it is not correct to say that there is no rational basis. There are elaborate processes involved. He reiterates that there are 21612 constituencies in the State of Kerala in the forth coming election. There are 37233 polling stations situated in 22061 buildings. The Election Commission is constituted under the provisions of Article 243 K of the Constitution. He would submit that the Commission is appointing observers in all the districts . The observers will be senior Administrative officers in all the districts. He would point out Rule 31 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election ) Rules, 1995. It reads as follows: