Kerala High Court Asks Election Officer To Decide NDA Candidate Anjali Nair's Plea To Change Ballot Name

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (April1) directed the Returning Officer of Thrippunithura Assembly Constituency to hear and pass orders on the representation preferred by actor and Twenty20 party's candidate Anjali P.V. to change her name to her more popularly known name "Anjali Nair" in the ballot paper / Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) in the upcoming Legislative Assembly elections.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was hearing a plea preferred by the actor after her representations before the Returning Officer and Chief Electoral Officer were not acted upon.

The actress is contesting in the general elections as a candidate of the Twenty20 Party from Thrippunithura constituency. The Twenty20 party in Kerala had, earlier this year, allied with the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

Yesterday, when the petition was moved urgently before a coordinate bench, the standing counsel for Election Commission was granted time to take instructions. 

When the matter came up today, the counsel representing the Electoral Officer submitted that the actress is presently registered in the name in which she applied. He submitted that later on, she decided to change the same and filed a representation. He pointed out that in the meeting held on 28th last month, the model ballot paper with her original name was shown to her.

However, the Court felt that it is necessary that a candidate should be identifiable by the voters. It directed the Electoral Officer to consider the representation after hearing the actor on Saturday. It was also directed that an order should be passed immediately after the hearing.

The Court orally remarked that a candidate's name should be shown as how she is known to the public. It was also orally said that no candidate should miss a vote because a voter has not identified them.

Justice Kunhikrishnan orally noted that political parties might find someone with similar names to confuse the voters: "It's a massacre of democracy. It is only to confuse the voters. It will efface the election. I am against that. All political parties are doing this...If Kunhikrishnan P.V. is contesting, they will find Kunhikrishnan T.V., K.V., etc. That should be stopped."

According to the plea, though the name entered in the nomination paper is 'Anjali P.V.', she is more popularly known as 'Anjali Nair' and she is identified by the latter name in political circles, public life, party communications, media references, and among the voters of the Thripunithura constituency.

Therefore, before the preparation of the list of contesting candidates, she had made a written request to the Returning Officer as per the proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, requesting that her name be shown as 'Anjali Nair'. However, her name in the list published was still shown as 'Anjali P.V.'

Aggrieved, she made a representation before the Returning Officer seeking immediate correction of her name. Since no action was taken on the same, yesterday (March 30), the actor addressed an urgent representation to the Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala seeking urgent intervention. This representation also not being acted upon, she has come before the High Court.

"the name “Anjali Nair” being the popular name of the Petitioner is well-established and evidenced by party communications, media reports, public records and other materials. All election materials including posters, banners, hoardings etc are printed in the name of Anjali Nair...Consequently, the error in the list prepared...has already cascaded, or will cascade, onto the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) for the Thripunithura Assembly Constituency. On the date of poll (09.04.2026), the electorate – which knows the Petitioner as “Anjali Nair” – will find the name “Anjali P.V.” displayed on the EVM, leading to confusion, misidentification, and direct prejudice to the Petitioner's electoral prospects. This strikes at the very purpose of the Proviso to Rule 8(2), which exists to ensure that candidates are identifiable to voters by their popular name," states the plea.

She has taken a contention that the language of the Proviso to Rule 8(2) is mandatory and not discretionary. Moreover, the only condition precedent is satisfaction as to genuineness, which is not in question in the present case. She has annexed her Wikipedia page as an evidence to prove that her popularly known name is 'Anjali Nair'.

She has thus sought for a direction to the Returning Officer to correct her name in the list of candidates, in the ballot/Electronic Voting Machine to 'Anjali Nair'.

The petition is moved by Advocates Joseph Kodiantara (Sr.), Vijay V. Paul, Blaze K. Jose, Ajay V. Anand, Alphin Antony, P.V. Uttara, Rojit Zachariah, Radhika Prasad, Mohammed Azif S., and Razana.

Case No: WP(C) 13155/2026

Case Title: Anjali P.V. (popularly known as Anjali Nair) v. The Returning Officer and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 182