LI Network
Published on: November 17, 2023 at 01:50 IST
The Kerala High Court has rejected the vote cast by a candidate who allegedly voted for himself in an election, citing ambiguity and uncertainty in the ballot paper.
The court observed that the voter’s intention must be deduced from the ballot paper itself and not from any antecedent or subsequent expressions.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that despite the voter’s claim that he voted for himself, the intention was not properly reflected on the ballot paper. The court referred to Rule 11 of the Kerala Municipality Standing Committee Rules, 2000, which requires a voter to mark ‘X’ against the name of the candidate they intend to vote for. In this case, the court observed that the ‘X’ was not marked properly against the candidate’s name, leading to the rejection of the vote.
The court emphasized, “The ambiguity or uncertainty created by the ballot paper cannot be substituted by any subsequent affirmations. Even if the voter is the candidate himself, that is not a reason to assume that he had cast his vote in his favour if the ballot paper does not expressly reflect or manifest such an intention.”
The case involved an election dispute between two candidates (petitioner and 6th respondent) competing for the position of Chairman for the Standing Committee for Education and Sports of the Cochin Corporation. Both candidates were Councillors of the Cochin Corporation.
The petitioner alleged that the 6th respondent, as a candidate, did not cast a valid vote for himself according to Rule 11 of the Kerala Municipality Standing Committee Rules, 2000. Despite raised allegations during the election, the returning officer refused to consider them. The 6th respondent received 4 votes out of the 7 counted and won the election.
The court, after examining the ballot paper, concluded that the mark ‘X’ was not properly placed against either the petitioner or the 6th respondent.
The court stated that as long as the mark is not the alphabet ‘X,’ the vote cannot be considered valid. Citing the precedent in Walter D. Paul v Ummer (1990), where a tick mark instead of ‘X’ led to the rejection of a vote, the court rejected the vote of the 6th respondent.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, and the court set aside the election of the 6th respondent as Chairman of the Standing Committee for Education and Sports of the Cochin Corporation.
Case title: Bastin Babu v State of Kerala
