The court observed an error in the total number of postal ballots received and the total number of invalid/rejected votes.
Published Jul 06, 2023 | 2:23 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 06, 2023 | 2:23 PM
The Madras High Court had directed to finish the counting process and declare the results in 10 days. (Creative Commons)
The Madras High Court directed a recounting of the postal ballots polled in the Tenkasi constituency during the 2021 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, following a petition challenging the victory of Congress candidate S Palani Nadar citing disparities in the counting of the mailed votes.
Allowing the election petition filed by S Selva Mohandas Pandian, the AIADMK candidate who contested against Palani Nadar, Justice G Jayachandran observed that the evidence placed before the court pointed out the errors in the total number of voters in the Constituency and the total number of votes polled.
“There is an error in the total number of postal ballots received and the total number of invalid/rejected votes. Hence, undoubtedly, these errors go to the root and materially affect the result, particularly when the victory margin is just 370 votes”, the judge said.
Further, he directed the district election officer to make necessary arrangements for recounting the postal votes and ordered the completion of the whole process, including the declaration of results, within ten days.
The judge also directed the appointment of an officer for the recounting and videographing of the entire process.
The court also allowed the candidates or their counting agents to be present at the counting table.
The petitioner, Pandian, contested the elections on behalf of the AIADMK and secured 88,945 votes. Whereas, the Congress candidate Palani Nadar secured 89,315 and was declared as the winner.
In the petition, Pandian submitted that the returning officer counted the postal ballots only after the completion of 27 rounds of counting of votes polled through EVMs, which is against Rule 54-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
According to the rule, “The returning officer shall first deal with the postal ballot papers.”
Alleging foul play in declaring the results of the postal votes, the petitioner submitted that at the completion of the 27th round, the returning officer stopped counting the EVM votes and directed the counting of postal ballots, while he was leading by 2,918 votes.
Pandian also contended that as per Rule 60, the counting process shall be continuous and should not be stopped in between without any reason.
He claimed that the returning officer, in an arbitrary manner, did not take any action based on the objection raised by his chief election agent KP Kumar Pandian and continued the counting of postal votes stopping the counting of EVM votes.
He also submitted that during the time of counting of postal ballots, several postal ballots did not contain the attestation and the seal of any gazetted officer, and the same ought to have been rejected.
Some of the postal ballots contained two tick marks, or the vote recorded by mark was indistinct and ambiguous, he claimed.
