Andhra Pradesh High Court Declines YSR Congress Party's Challenge Against Relaxation Of Postal Ballot Norms, Asks Party To File Election Petition

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday heard a plea filed by the YSR Congress Party, challenging the memos issued by Chief Electoral Officer Mukesh Kumar Meena, relaxing the norms to be adopted for deciding on the validity of postal ballots, which are said to contradict Rule 27F, 54A and Form 13A of The Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961 issued by the Election Commission of India.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Kiranmayee Mandava and Justice Nyapathy Vijay disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to adjudicate the matter before the Court in an election petition.

The petition was filed on 30th May and the judgement was rendered on on Saturday (1st June) at 8pm.

Background:

Rule 54A clause 3 mandate that a cover shall only be opened by the returning officer after scrutinizing the declaration submitted under Form 13 A. 

Further clause 4 reads that in case the declaration is not found or had not been or has not been duly signed and attested, or is otherwise substantially defective, or if the serial number of the ballot paper as entered in it differs from the serial number endorsed on the cover in Form 13B, that cover shall not be opened, and after making an appropriate endorsement thereon, the returning officer shall reject the ballot paper therein contained.

The petitioner alleged that the Chief Electoral Officer for the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of his memo has relaxed these Rules noting that so long as there is a signature by the polling officer, no stamp or any other authentication would be needed. It was contended that the statutory rules were being done away with allowing gross abuse.

The three main points raised by the petitioner were that:

1) The memo is contrary to the Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961

2) The Chief Electoral Officer does not have the power to do away with Rules issued by the ECI.

3) The relaxation was to be implemented only in the State of Andhra Pradesh, only 10 days before the election results were to be declared.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Sanghvi appearing for the Congress Party pointed out that the ECI issued detailed guidelines, which clearly mention that the returning officer should sign and stamp all postal ballot forms including 13A and 13B. And that rule 27 requires the name, address and other details of the attesting officer.

He had argued that more than 5lakh voters had cast their vote in the State and if the memos were implemented it would cause a serious threat of election malpractice.

It was pressed that such relaxation was only being implemented in the State of AP, whereas such election cover would be rejected in any other State.

Senior Counsel Avinash Desai Appearing on behalf of the Election Commission of India clarified that the memos were only for voters on election duty and not all voters in general. And that there is no malafide since they are pre-verified attestation officers.

He argued that the name, and designation of the officers does not matter as the vote was being cast by them at a facilitation center. It was contended that the memos were issued with the intention of ensuring that voters on election duty are not disfranchised from their right to cast a vote.

The Bench after hearing both sides thought it apt that the dispute be resolved by way of an election petition and not a writ.

WP 12167 of 2024