PUSHPA Vs. MALINGA MANIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shall a witness be required to state for whom he has voted at an election Is there any statutory embargo for disclosing how he voted The issue arises under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the 'Act' for short). The petitioners have been summoned to tender evidence as witnesses in an election petition filed challenging the election to Ward No. 11 of Dhalampady Grama Panchayat in Kasaragod district. The election has been called in question under Section 102(1)(d)(iii) of the Act on the ground that eight voters have indulged in double voting and that there has been an improper reception of their void votes. The main thrust in the election petition is that the eight voters have voted in more than one constituency of the same level in violation of Section 76(3) of the Act. The election petition seeks to set aside the election of the second respondent and declare the first respondent as the duly elected candidate after eschewing the eight void votes. The petitioners are two out of the eight voters who challenge in this Original Petition the witness summons issued to them in O.P. No. 15/2010 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Kasaragod.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they would be forced to depose before court to whom they have cast their votes if summoned as witnesses infringing the secrecy of voting postulated under Section 96 of the Act. The petitioners maintain that the court below should have acted with circumspection in issuing witness summons to them which has the deleterious effect of affecting their privilege. The petitioners assert that the secrecy of the ballot should be maintained to ensure free and fair elections and that they should not be compelled to tender evidence in court. The witness summons issued to the petitioners are sought to be quashed on that score in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I heard Mr. V.V. Asokan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners whose arguments were really novel.