20,000 duty officers couldn't vote in Kerala Assembly polls; HC slams ECI
The Kerala High Court criticised the Election Commission for failing to ensure election duty staff could vote, emphasising the ECI's duty to facilitate voting rights for all citizens.
The Kerala High Court criticised the Election Commission for failing to ensure election duty staff could vote, emphasising the ECI's duty to facilitate voting rights for all citizens.
The Kerala High Court criticised the Election Commission for failing to ensure election duty staff could vote, emphasising the ECI's duty to facilitate voting rights for all citizens.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI) after around 20,000 personnel engaged in election duty in the state were unable to cast their votes. Justice K V Jayakumar expressed dissatisfaction over the Commission’s reluctance to address the issue.
“You have to give an opportunity. Why are you so adamant?” the court orally asked, reminding the poll body that it is duty-bound to ensure every voter can exercise their franchise. The court was hearing a batch of petitions, including Kerala NGO Union v Election Commission of India and connected cases, alleging that thousands of government employees deployed for election duty during the 2026 Assembly elections were denied postal ballots, effectively depriving them of their right to vote.
The judge observed that it is the responsibility of the Election Commission to provide necessary facilities to all eligible voters. “If they come with a complaint that they could not vote, it is for you to take necessary action and not the court. You ought not to have waited for the court’s direction,” the court remarked.
During an earlier hearing, the court had sought the ECI’s response on whether such officials could still be allowed to vote before counting began. On Tuesday, it also suggested that a limited window could be considered for those whose postal ballot applications had been accepted.
However, the Commission maintained that it had taken all necessary steps and argued that the petitioners should have approached the appropriate forum through an election petition rather than a writ petition. It also contended that the officials were negligent, as postal ballot applications were either not submitted, rejected, or found defective.
The court questioned this stand, pointing out that the polling personnel were appointed by the Commission itself. “Such persons are appointed by you and are working day and night,” it noted. Highlighting the public interest involved, the court said it would examine whether judicial intervention was required, but did not pass any orders on Tuesday and deferred the matter.
One of the petitions was filed by the Kerala NGO Union, representing non-gazetted government officers deputed for election duty, while another was filed by the Joint Council of State Service Organisation, representing over 50,000 state government employees.
The petitions alleged that several officials were not issued postal ballots despite applying within the stipulated time, and sought permission to vote even after polling day. Petitioners also claimed that nearly 6,000 officials did not receive ballot papers despite timely applications, while many others were unable to vote as the deadline for postal voting lapsed during their election duties.
In an earlier interim order, the court had stressed that the right to vote cannot be denied even to polling officials and directed authorities to urgently facilitate issuance of postal ballots. However, petitioners alleged large-scale non-compliance with this direction.
Apart from the voting issue, the petitions also raised concerns over non-payment or partial payment of allowances to Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who claimed they were paid significantly less than the sanctioned amount for electoral roll revision work.
The Kerala NGO Union was represented by advocates Dinesh Mathew J Murikan, Vinod S Pillai, Nayana Varghese, Jerry Peter and Goutham Chandrasekhar. The Joint Council of State Service Organisation was represented by advocates Aadithyan S Mannali and Ramola Nayanpally. Standing counsel Deepu Lal Mohan appeared for the ECI.
(With LiveLaw inputs)