A bench comprising Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice T S Sivagnanam gave the interim order on a PIL petition seeking to forebear police authorities from collecting personal details and "harassing" the electorate who exercised the option not to vote in favour of any of the contestants. It also directed the state Chief Electoral Officer to file the counter to the petition by one S Sathiachandran.The petitioner alleged that the police had "unleashed an unsustainable imagination that those who had opted the 49-O option could have links with Naxalites".The police was said to have collected the personal particulars of those electors who opted to exercise their right under 49-O and grilling them treating them as suspects and violators of the law. This was not only wholly mischievous but also illegal, he alleged.The petitioner further contended that the police has no power or authority or jurisdiction to undertake the exercise. Moreover the District Election Officers have no power to furnish the details to any other than officials of Election Commission.According to rule 49-O, if an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon, decides not to record his vote, a remark to this effect is made against the said entry in the form by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector obtained against such remark.
No comments:
Post a Comment