Kerala High Court Declines Relief To Polling Officials Who Couldn't Vote In State Assembly Election

Update: 2026-04-30 10:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (30 April) declined relief to polling officers who could not vote in the general elections of the State held on April 9. Justice K V Jayakumar passed the order. The writ petitions alleged large-scale denial of voting rights to government officials deployed on election duty during the State Assembly polls.On April 8, the Court had directed the ECI to...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (30 April) declined relief to polling officers who could not vote in the general elections of the State held on April 9. 

Justice K V Jayakumar passed the order. 

The writ petitions alleged large-scale denial of voting rights to government officials deployed on election duty during the State Assembly polls.

On April 8, the Court had directed the ECI to take corrective steps to ensure that election duty personnel receive their postal ballots without delay. Pursuant to the direction, the Commission issued an order on the same day to facilitate voting by such personnel.

However, counsel for the petitioners submitted that several voters on election duty did not receive postal ballots despite submitting their applications within the prescribed time. It was further argued that under Rule 27 of the Conduct of Election Rules, postal ballots must reach the Returning Officer before the commencement of counting, and therefore, the grievance could still be addressed before that stage.

The Court had earlier emphasised that it is the responsibility of the Election Commission to provide necessary facilities to all eligible citizens, including those on election duty, to enable them to exercise their franchise.

The Court in its interim order examined the Part XV of the Constitution of India which deals with elections and noted that Article 329(b) imposes a bar on the courts to interfere in electoral matters.

The petitioners, by relying on Election Commission of India v Ashok Kumar and Ors. [(2000) 8 SCC 216] submitted that there is no complete ouster of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts. The Court thus observed that under the dictum laid down under Ashok Kumar, the petition is maintainable.

During the last hearing the Court has questioned the the Election Commission of India (ECI) over allegations that more than 20,000 election duty staff were unable to cast their votes in the Assembly elections held on April 9.

The Election Commission have submitted that the petitioners have failed to furnish the names and other details of the affected parties. Even though one of the petitioners have provided the district wise figures of the electoral officers who could not vote, the name and other particulars of the officers are not mentioned. 

It was also submitted that since the strong room remain sealed until commencement of counting at 8 a.m on May 04, accessing or altering the status of postal ballot prior to the counting would directly compromise the sanctity, secrecy and irrevocability of the electoral process. 

The Court, after considering the submissions of both the parties held that interference of the Court at this advanced stage of the electoral process is not warranted and hence declined any interim orders. 

"Having anxiously considered the rival submissions of the counsels for the parties, in the light of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the dictum laid down in Ashok Kumar (supra), I am of the view that, interference of this Court at this advanced stage of the electoral process, by way of an interim order, is not warranted. The interim orders sought for are declined." Court said. 

Case Title: Kerala N.G.O Union v Election Commission of India and connected matters

Case No: WP(C) 14379/ 2026 and connected matters

Counsel for Petitioner: Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, Vinod S. Pillai, Nayana Varghese, Jerry Peter, Goutham Chandrasekhar, Ria Varghese, Goutham Chandrasekhar, Maroof, Nafiya Shahala C.K, T.B.Hood, M. Isha, Nayanpally Ramola, Aadithyan S. Mannali, Anoop V. Nair, Sharannya P., Athil P., C A. Beema Beevi, Ferra A Thankam

Counsel for Respondent: M Ajay (SC- ECI), Deepu Lal Mohan

Click Here To Read/ Download Interim Order

Tags:    

Similar News