Court Rules No Interference in Advanced Stage of Electoral Process Despite Alleged Postal Ballot Delays
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has declined to grant interim relief to petitioners seeking intervention against the Election Commission of India for allegedly failing to supply postal ballots on time to officers on election duty during the 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly elections. The decision was made in response to multiple writ petitions filed by the Joint Council of State Service Organisation and other government employee associations, who claimed that thousands of officers were disenfranchised due to delayed postal ballots.
Presiding Judge K.V. Jayakumar ruled that while writ petitions are maintainable, interference at the advanced stage of the election process would disrupt the democratic procedure and is thus unwarranted. The court underscored the importance of upholding the sanctity and fairness of the electoral process, especially when counting was scheduled to commence shortly.
The petitioners argued that the Election Commission had failed to fulfill its statutory duties under Rules 18A and 20 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, infringing on officers' constitutional right to vote under Article 326. They highlighted a systemic failure, with 20,411 officers allegedly unable to cast their postal votes due to delays.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, the petitioners contended that the jurisdiction of constitutional courts is not completely ousted under Article 329(b) of the Constitution, and judicial intervention is permissible to facilitate election progress without obstructing or delaying proceedings.
However, the Election Commission's counsel argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to Article 329(b), which bars court interference in electoral matters until the completion of the election process. Furthermore, the counsel asserted that allowing postal ballots at this stage would compromise the electoral process's integrity.
The court noted the absence of detailed information about the affected officers in the petitions, suggesting potential malafides in the claims. It also emphasized the risk of compromising the electoral process's secrecy and irrevocability if postal ballots were altered before counting.
Ultimately, the court refrained from issuing interim orders, advising that disputes should be addressed post-election through election petitions, thus preserving the integrity of the ongoing electoral process.
Bottom line:-
Elections - Maintainability of writ petition against the Election Commission of India during the election process - Held, writ petitions are maintainable in appropriate cases; however, interference at an advanced stage of election process through interim orders is not warranted.
Statutory provision(s): Article 324, Article 326, Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; Representation of the People Act, 1951.
