2025 Local Body Polls: Kerala High Court Directs Election Commission To Ensure Voter Comfort, Suggests Real-Time Queue App

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, delivered the judgment in a writ petition challenging the Election Commission's decision to cap the number of voters at 1,200 per polling booth in Panchayats and 1,500 in Municipalities.

The petitioners contended that these limits were impractical given that each Panchayat voter has to cast three votes in local body elections and it may not be possible to complete polling within 12 hours if only one booth is provided, potentially denying voters their constitutional right to participate in the election.

The judgment began with underlining the importance of voters in a democracy and observed: “In a democracy, if a voter reaches the polling booth but leaves the polling station without casting his vote upon seeing a long queue of voters, that is the death knell of democracy and reflects nothing but the failure of democracy.”

The court agreed with the submissions of the petitioner and observed that such caps were not practicable if all voters turned out, noting that each voter would get barely 30–40 seconds to cast their votes during the 11-hour polling window.

“ The Election Commission assumes that not all 1,200 voters will come to cast their vote, which is a common practice in earlier elections. Such an assumption is not acceptable in a democratic election. The Election Commission should expect that all 1200/1500 voters allotted to the polling booth of the Panchayat and Municipality will come to cast their vote, and necessary arrangements should be provided…. It is practically impossible for a voter to cast a vote after following the above procedure within 30 to 40 seconds. Therefore, 1200/1500 voters per booth in the Panchayat and Municipality is not practicable.” the bench observed.

However, citing constitutional mandates and Supreme Court precedents in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad [(2006) 8 SCC 352] and A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India [(1982) 2 SCC 218], the court declined to intervene at this late stage, as any alteration could delay the impending polls scheduled before December 20, 2025.

The bench issued directions to improve voter experience. The State Election Commission was ordered to implement queue management systems with seating arrangements and drinking water at every polling station in the State for the 2025 elections.

“The voters are the superstars of democracy. Therefore, they should be respected and treated well in the booth,” the Court added.

The Court proposed a Voter's queue monitoring system. In its judgment, the Court extracted the proposal of Mr. Ishaque K.V., Principal Technical Officer, IT Cell, High Court of Kerala which is intended to monitor and manage Voter Queue during election, which would allow voters to check real-time queue lengths at polling booths, estimate waiting times, and receive notifications when queues shorten.

Justice Kunhikrishnan lauded the proposal as an “innovative move” and urged the Election Commission to develop such an application in consultation with stakeholders before the elections.

Concluding with a reminder of the democratic ethos, the Court recalled Mahatma Gandhi's vision of democracy as a “running race” where both winners and losers are essential.

“ The spectators of the above running race are the voters who cast their votes in the election. Their applause should be expressed by exercising their right to vote. If all the voters clap and encourage the contestants, and, of course, if they extend their congratulations to both the winners and losers, that will truly reflect the beauty of our democracy and serve as a salute to our Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi.” the bench observed.

The Court thus directed the State Election Commission to ensure that the directions regarding the mobile application shall be implemented, so that all voters are able to exercise their right to vote in the ensuing election

Case Title: N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission and Anr and connected case

Case No: WP(C) 34746/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698

Counsel for Petitioner: Kavery S Thampi, Jeleetta Gregory

Counsel for Respondent: Deepu Lal Mohan (SC- State Election Commission), Jessy S Salim (GP)