ORDER K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. These six C. M. Ps have been filed by persons who were examined as witnesses in E. P. No. No 4/91. In the affidavit filed in support of the C. M. Ps it is alleged that, they were voters in the Number 11 Edakkad Constituency and they had exercised their franchise during the last election. It is further stated that under S.94 and 128 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 they have got a right to maintain the secrecy of ballot and they bona fide apprehend that the secrecy of voting would be violated if the ballot papers are examined as per the orders of this court. So it is prayed that these petitioners may be permitted to take part in the proceedings of the Election Petition and be heard about the question of law regarding maintenance of secrecy of ballot papers. 2. I heard these petitions and they are disposed of by a common order. 3. The counsel for the petitioners contend that in the course of taking evidence in E. P. 4/91 counter foils and marked electoral rolls were marked as exhibits and therefore it is divulged that these petitioners had cast vote by using a particular counter foil and under that circumstance if the ballot papers are scrutinised and the numbers in the counter foils are further verified with reference to the ballot papers, the secrecy of the ballot papers will be lost. 4. There is no case for the petitioners that mere scrutiny of the counter foils and the marked electoral rolls the secrecy of the ballot will be lost. In E. P. 4/91 while all these petitioners were examined as witnesses they were asked whether the particular names in the electoral roll referred to these witnesses and the counter foil against the particular voters were confronted to these witnesses. Some of these witnesses deposed that they had not put the signature in the counter foil. Some others stated that they were not in a position to identify the signature in the counter foil. Except in the case of P. W. 113 the votes cast by all other petitioners have been declared void by this court by judgment dt. 10-8-1992. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that if the ballot papers are scrutinised there will be violation of secrecy of ballot. Except in the case of P. W. 113 the votes cast by all other petitioners have been declared void by this court by judgment dt. 10-8-1992. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that if the ballot papers are scrutinised there will be violation of secrecy of ballot. The Supreme Court in Radhbir Singh v. Gurcharan Singh ( AIR 1980 SC 1362 ) has held that: "...... Enduring the secrecy of ballot does not mean that there is a total embargo and absolute prohibition on finding out through the mouth of a voter for whom he voted. If S.94 is interpreted to mean to be a privilege of the voter to divulge or not to divulge how he voted and if he chooses not to divulge, S 94 protects him inasmuch as he cannot be compelled to divulge that information, then it does not stand in conflict with the other important principle of free and fair elections to sustain parliamentary democracy." It is stated further in Para.22 that: - "...... If secrecy of ballot instead of ensuring free and fair elections is used to defeat the very public purpose for which it is enacted, to suppress a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud on the election process or even to defend a crime viz., forgery of ballot papers, this principle of secrecy of ballot will have to yield to the larger principle of free and fair elections". 5. It cannot be said that every voter has an absolute privilege regarding the secrecy of ballot. This is a case wherein the dispute is that some voters had cast more than one vote and that there was impersonation in voting and thus the votes had been cast against S.62(1) and (4) of the Act and therefore void votes. In order to detect the invalid nature of the ballot papers it is absolutely necessary to peruse the ballot papers. However almost safeguards have been taken to protect the secrecy of ballot papers. The Officers and the Counsel who have been authorised to be present at the time of opening the ballot boxes and inspection of ballot papers are given strict instruction not to violate the secrecy of ballot. Their attention was drawn to S.128 of the Representation of People Act. The Officers and the Counsel who have been authorised to be present at the time of opening the ballot boxes and inspection of ballot papers are given strict instruction not to violate the secrecy of ballot. Their attention was drawn to S.128 of the Representation of People Act. I do not think that these responsible persons would violate the secrecy of ballot against the mandate of S.128 of the Act. I have also given instruction not to take the marked electoral rolls and the counter foils to the place where the ballot papers are being scrutinised and I have also further instructed that in the report to be filed by the Joint Registrar he need only indicate that out of the void/invalid votes how many votes have been cast in favour of the 1st respondent. So I do not think that the secrecy of the ballot would in any way be violated causing prejudice to the petitioners herein. 6. Therefore I do not think that the petitioners need be allowed to participate in the proceedings in E. P. 4 of 1991. With these observation the C. M. Ps are disposed of.