SIDDIQU T. Vs. P. KARUNAKARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has contested as a candidate for the election from 1-Kasaragode Parliamentary Constituency in the Parliament Election conducted on 10/04/2014, has come up under Sections 80, 80A, 84 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for getting the election of the first respondent from the said constituency in the said election and the results declared on 16/05/2014 set aside, and also for declaring the petitioner as the returned candidate from the said constituency in the said election. In the aforesaid election from the said constituency, respondents 2 to 13 are the other candidates, over and above the petitioner and the first respondent. The votes cast in the election were counted on 16/05/2014 and the first respondent was declared elected by a margin of 6,921 votes more than the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was a candidate of the Indian National Congress (hereinafter referred to as 'INC') and the first respondent was a candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [hereinafter referred to as CPI (M)]. The 2nd respondent was a candidate of the Bharathiya Janata Party, the 3rd respondent was a candidate of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the 4th respondent was a candidate of Aam Admi Party (APP), the 6th respondent was a candidate of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the 13th respondent was a candidate of All India Trinamool Congress. All the others were independent candidates. According to the petitioner, the election of the first respondent from the constituency was vitiated by various corrupt practices coming within the purview of Section 123 of the Act.

(3.) Polling Station No. 4 of 4-Kanhangad Assembly Constituency, which forms part of the above parliamentary constituency, was at the Government High School, Ravaneswaram, where one Sri. S. Ganapathi Bhatt working as HSA, GVHSS Mulleria, Kasaragod was the Presiding Officer. He is an active member of the National Teachers' Union which owes political allegiance to Bharathiya Janata Party. According to the petitioner, in the last parliament election, the main contest throughout India was between Indian National Congress and Bharathiya Janata Party. The political agenda of BJP, as far as Kerala was concerned, was that even if a CPI(M) nominee wins the election, by no stretch an INC nominee should be allowed to win. In all constituencies where BJP thought that they have no chance to win the election, they preferred a CPI(M) nominee to a INC nominee. According to the petitioner, Kasaragod was one such constituency and therefore, the interest of Sri. Ganapathy Bhatt was against the petitioner. It is also alleged that Sri. P.N. Sathyan, who was a polling officer in that booth was an active worker and sympathiser of CPI(M). Another polling officer Sri. Ragesh Theerthamkara is also closely associated with the activities of NGO Union, an association owing political allegiance to CPI(M). It is alleged that the other two polling officers namely Jose Civijan and K.V. Vijayan were also closely associated with the activities of NGO Union. All the said officers-in-charge of that polling station were interested in the first respondent winning the election. The voting process underwent in the above booth was an apology to democratic system of election and voting. The polling officers never insisted for production of proper identity cards by the voters, and many voters were allowed to vote even without marking with ink on their fingers. The CPI(M) workers were allowed to cast their votes twice and thrice. Votes in the names of voters who were not available in the station were allowed to be cast freely by others. Instances are there where one voter cast at least eight votes without any objection from the polling officers. Even though, polling agent of the petitioner Sri. Anish Kumar raised objection, the Presiding Officer and the polling officers, did not take care of the objection. On various occasions when such fake votes were cast, the direction of the video camera installed by the Election Commission was diverted from that area. The video footage will clearly reveal that all the above said officers were actively assisting the first respondent to further his prospects in the election. The same was done by the said officers with the full knowledge and consent of the first respondent and his election agent.