IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1080 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ PREMSON PAUL MANJAMATTOM, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA YOUTH FRONT (JACOB) MANJAMATTOM HOUSE,PIRAVOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.EGY.N.ELIAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.1080 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The writ petitioner states that he is a public spirited citizen. He is the State General Secretary of Kerala Youth Front (Jacob). He seeks a direction to the respondents to ensure that the electoral rolls for the forthcoming elections to the local bodies in the State of Kerala should be impressed with photographs of the voters and that the voters should possess photo impressed identity cards while coming for voting in that election. He pleads that Ext.P5 representation placed before the first respondent should be directed to be considered. 2. The crux of the contention of the petitioner is that there is likelihood of voting without establishing the identity of the person coming to vote. The petitioner apprehends that the absence of photo impressed identity cards and photo impressed list of voters would result in large scale manipulation in the voting. W.P.(C) No.1080 of 2010 2 3. The State Election Commission has come on record with an elaborate statement which is self explanatory. Reference is made to Rule 31 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995 which relates to identification of electors. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 31 of the said Rules provides that each elector shall produce either the identity card issued by the Central Election Commission or Revenue Card or Ration Card or Passport or Driving Licence or Pass Book obtained from Bank or Post Office, if demanded by the Presiding officer or the Polling officer authorised by him in this behalf. 4. Rule 31 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995 corresponds to Rule 31 of the Kerala Municipality (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995. The identity of a person claiming to be a particular elector can be challenged in terms of Rule 32 and Rule 33 provides safeguards against impersonation. W.P.(C) No.1080 of 2010 3 5. The statutory Rules being in place following the legislation which govern election to the local bodies, it is not for the court to sit in and assume that all is not well and issue directions which may only amount to interfering with the scheme which is in place by the legislative process and directions by authorities like the Central Election Commission and the State Election Commission. The Court would not assume a fictional status of elections being not held in proper manner. The power to regulate and have the elections conducted is bestowed on high authorities, which is in consequence of the Constitution and the laws. 6. If there is any requirement for any modulation of the existing scheme, it will be for the Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, to bring in further regulatory measures. If the Central Election Commission and the State Election Commission do not conceive of any need to modulate the existing situation, it would not be advisable for the Court to W.P.(C) No.1080 of 2010 4 interfere with the electoral process which is wholly regulated by the statute laws and directions that may be issued from time to time by the appropriate Election Commission. For the aforesaid reasons, having regard to the elaborate statement on record as placed on behalf of the State Election Commission, we find no ground to issue any direction. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns