Andhra Pradesh High Court: Public interest litigation was filed to make a provision for enabling such like women who were in a family way, i.e. was pregnant to cast their vote through postal ballot. The Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ., and R. Raghunandan Rao, J., directed the respondents-Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) to consider as to whether pregnant women should be permitted to cast their vote through postal ballot or not.
Petitioner highlighted the issue that pregnant women were prevented from casting their vote and therefore, just as the Government permitted the senior citizens above the age of 85 years to cast their vote through postal ballot, by amending the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, a similar provision ought to be made by the Government/ECI. Petitioner placed reliance on Section 60 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which provided that a power vested ECI in consultation with the Government, to enable any person belonging to a class of persons notified by the Election Commission to give his vote by postal ballot. Thus, it was stated that even the ECI could have issued a notification enabling the casting of the vote of such like ladies.
Thus, the Court directed the ECI that they should view the present petition as a representation on which an appropriate decision be taken by ECI to consider as to whether ladies who were pregnant should be permitted to cast their vote through postal ballot or not.
[Kesana Vishnu Vardhan Goud v. Election Commission of India, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1651, Order dated 08-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Respondents: Avinash Desai for D S Sivadarshan, Vivek Chandra Sekhar S, Jupudi V K Yagnadutt, Advocates;
