RENJITH Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a candidate insist for the inspection of the Electronic Voting Machines used for the poll in order to assure himself of the transparency of election otherwise than by an Election Petition

(2.) The petitioner contested from Ward No.8 in Kalady Grama Panchayat and lost the election to the local body by a sizable margin which he least expected. The petitioner entertained a doubt that the Electronic Voting Machines installed in two booths were defective and this paved the way for his ignominious defeat in the election. The petitioner thereupon preferred Ext.P3 representation to the Returning Officer seeking to re-check the Electronic Voting Machines in his presence. The main components of the Electronic Voting Machines used for the poll are stated to be the Detachable Memory Module, the Ballot Unit and the Control Unit. A writ of mandamus has been sought for an expeditious consideration of Ext.P3 representation and not to remove the Electronic Voting Machines from safe custody in the meanwhile.

(3.) The State Election Commission has filed a statement contending that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the bar under Article 243-0(b) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner not having filed an election petition in time cannot have the Electronic Voting Machines re-checked in his presence. It is stated that the Electronic Voting Machines or other records relating to the election cannot be produced or inspected by any authority except by an order of Court. Only the Court competent to try the election petition wherein the election is called in question can pass such an order which the petitioner has concededly failed to approach. It is futile to have the Electronic Voting Machines re-checked when the exercise does not at all affect the declaration of the result of the election.