Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala State Election Commissioner A Shajahan on Wednesday ordered the CPM-led Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to reinstate the name of Vyshna S L, the 24-year-old Congress candidate from Muttada ward, in the voters' list. 

"The decision taken by the electoral registration officer (ERO) of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to strike off the name of the petitioner (Vyshna) from the final voters' list without considering the documents submitted by her and violating established procedures stands cancelled," the SEC's order said. It said the removal of Vyshna's name from the list had no legal standing. 

Though Vyshna's name featured in the Muttada ward voters' lists published on September 2 and October 25, it was found erased in the supplementary list published on November 13. The deletion was based on a complaint filed by a local CPM leader named Dhanesh Kumar. 

Vyshna had alleged that she was removed from the list even though the complainant had failed to appear for the hearing on November 12 or provide any documents to substantiate his claim. Vyshna, on the other hand, had submitted a detailed statement and provided all the documents necessary to prove that she was a resident of the ward.

Vyshna's charge was that the Corporation deleted her name without considering the documents that she had submitted before it.

To prove his claim that Vyshna was not a resident of Muttada, Dhanesh had held up Vyshna's house number in the voters' list. The house number given was 18/564. Though he did not attend the hearing, Dhanesh appeared before the ERO in Vyshna's absence on November 12 and repeated his charge that she did not reside in house number 18/564, and that the house belonged to Rajeeb Sha and Josna. 

The Corporation ERO did not bother to verify the documents submitted by Vyshna and arbitrarily removed her from the supplementary voters' list. 

Vyshna's documents - EPIC card, driving licence, passport and aadhar card - revealed that her house number was 3/564. Ward 3 later became Ward 18. This was reflected in the address she gave the State Election Commission on Form 4, but carelessly left the house number unchanged. That was how her house number became 18/564. 

However, in her statement and the documents she provided during the November 18 hearing, it was revealed that her house number had changed to 18/2365, and her address was Sudha Bhavan, Muttada, Thiruvananthapuram.

The Corporation enquiry officer had no case that Vyshna was not a resident of Sudha Bhavan, Muttada. The Corporation's only contention was that the house number she had mistakenly provided (18/564) did not belong to her. "There can be no justification for this," the SEC said in its order.

It suggested an eagerness to disenfranchise her. "It is only enough that a person should be recognised as ordinarily resident in an area. And for this no proof like house number or ownership certificate or rent receipt is required. However, the ERO had failed to imbibe this basic spirit of democracy," the order said.

Neither the enquiry officer nor the hearing official had recorded that Vyshna was not a resident of Sudha Bhavan, Muttada. "In fact the Corporation ERO had admitted during the hearing (on November 18) that Vyshna's name was included in the voters' list after he was convinced that she was 'ordinarily resident' in the address given," the order said.

Yet, it seemed like the Corporation officials were looking for some means to keep Vyshna out of the fray. "It is against norms to accept the respondent's complaint in the absence of the petitioner during the hearing (held by the Corporation on November 12). The complaint should have been rejected then and there. But it was accepted and the petitioner's name was removed from the list the very next day. None of the documents submitted by the petitioner was considered," the order said. 

The SEC said that the Corporation ERO's decision to accept a complaint without giving the petitioner a chance to respond was devoid of legal footing. 

The SEC had conducted the hearing on November 18 after the High Court on November 17 instructed the SEC to step in and pass appropriate orders. "I make it clear that a girl aged 24 years shall not be denied her right to participate in the election for a technical reason. In these types of cases, the winner should be democracy and not technicality or party politics. The order shall be passed on or before November 19," Judge P V Unnikrishnan said in his order.