Petitioners' Allegations of Election Commission Lapses Rejected at Advanced Stage of Electoral Process
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, under the aegis of Justice K. V. Jayakumar, has declined to grant interim relief to petitioners challenging the Election Commission of India's handling of postal ballots for officers on election duty during the 2026 Legislative Assembly elections in Kerala. The judgment was delivered in response to multiple writ petitions alleging systemic lapses in the timely delivery of postal ballots, which petitioners claim infringed upon their constitutional right to vote.
The court addressed the primary grievance that officers deployed for election duties were not supplied with postal ballots in a timely manner, thereby preventing them from casting their votes. Petitioners contended that the Election Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligations under Rule 18A and Rule 20 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, leading to a breach of constitutional rights enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution of India.
Representing the petitioners, advocates argued that the delay in postal ballot distribution constituted a serious systemic lapse, undermining the spirit of free and fair elections. They sought an interim directive from the court to ensure the availability of postal ballots at designated election facilitation centers and allow the officers to exercise their franchise.
However, the standing counsel for the Election Commission, Shri. Deepu Lal Mohan, opposed the interim relief. He cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which bars court interference in electoral matters except through an election petition post-election. He also argued that granting relief at this advanced stage, with vote counting imminent, would disrupt the election schedule and process.
Justice Jayakumar, referring to precedents such as the Supreme Court's judgment in *Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar*, acknowledged that judicial intervention is permissible under certain circumstances despite Article 329(b). However, he emphasized that interference at such a late stage could compromise the fairness and sanctity of the electoral process.
The court found that petitioners failed to provide specific details of affected officers, which weakened their case for interim relief and raised questions about their bona fides. With postal ballots securely stored until the counting process, any attempt to alter their status before counting was deemed to undermine the electoral process's integrity.
Ultimately, the court ruled that while a writ petition is maintainable, intervention at this juncture is unwarranted, declining the interim orders sought by the petitioners.
Bottom line:-
Election Law - Officers on election duty alleging denial of postal ballots - Writ Petition maintainable under certain circumstances despite bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India - However, interference at advanced stage of election process by way of interim order, declined to preserve sanctity and fairness of electoral process.
Statutory provision(s): Article 324, Article 326, Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India; Rule 18A and Rule 20 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Abins Karim v. Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sadan, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2893717
