RAMAN Vs. BALAN VAIDHYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. P. Raman, the defeated candidate from (No. 27 seat reserved for schedule caste) Kunnamangalam Constituency in the general election to the Kerala Assembly held in March 1987 wants to declare the election of the first respondent void on several grounds and he also wants to declare him elected. Petitioner contested as the candidate of I. U. M. L., one of the constituents of the U. D. F., his election symbol being ladder. First respondent was the candidate of C. P. I. (M), an ally of the L. D. F. Other candidates were respondents 2 and 3. Real fight was between petitioner and first respondent. Margin of success of R1 was 293 votes.

(2.) Grounds are (1) Nine instances of double voting (2) Names of 37 persons who did not attain the age of 21 as on 1-1-1987 were entered in the electoral rolls and they exercised franchise (3) In Polling station No. 119 wrong instrument was given by the polling staff to 38 voters and those votes were wrongly rejected as invalid (4) Wrong sorting and counting of votes polled in favour of the petitioner to the credit of other candidates mentioning the detected number in tables 16, 18, 19 and 20 as 397 (5) Counting staff did not fill up part II of form 16 as enjoined by R.56 (7) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and hence it was filled up by Assistant Returning Officer (6) Request for rectification of miscounting by the election agent was rejected (7) P. W. 12 the election agent applied for recount and also filed a second detailed application as directed by the Returning Officer. But no orders were passed and (8) certain corrupt practices as detailed below.

(3.) Issue (1) What is made objectionable under S.62(3) and (4) is double voting and not mere double, entry which also may have to be avoided. The votes become void only on account of the exercise of the franchise by the same person more than once and not by the entry of his name more than once. The maximum that could be accepted from the evidence of P. Ws. 16 and 17 and Exts. P2 to P8 electoral rolls proved by them even by a liberal approach is only that the names of six voters were entered twice in the rolls. On the question of double voting their testimonies do not appear convincing. They are partisan witnesses whose tendencies to have an elastic conscience to help the petitioner is clear. If their versions are accepted double voting was detected even at the stage of attempt by standing in the queue and unsuccessful steps were taken for prevention by informing the authorities. The version that those attempts did not succeed was not found appealing to me. Even without any such attempt the indelible ink in the forefinger is a safeguard by which the polling officers could prevent such attempts. There is no case that the ink was erased. If the versions of these two witnesses are accepted, even at the time of polling or at least before counting started the petitioner must have been aware of all details regarding double voting including the identity of the persons, the ballot papers and the polling stations. There is nothing to show that at the time of polling or counting or even after counting when the petition for recounting was filed, any such ground was taken. Evidently the present allegation without full details is only a device for inspection of ballot papers which is otherwise not possible. P. Ws. 16 and 17 were not able to inspire confidence in me when they gave evidence regarding double voting in six cases.