Yesterday's verdict reinforced the Constitution Court's May 8 decision on the botched balloting.

"This court rules to nullify the ballots cast for constituency and party-list candidates on April 2 and cancel all subsequent activities stemming from the vote," presiding judge Somchai Watanakarun said when announcing the decision.

The administrative litigation was based on two citizen petitions filed by Pothipong Banluewong and Pramual Wirutamasen, which the court combined into one case.

The petition argued that the EC had violated voter's privacy by changing the configuration of the balloting booths.

In the verdict, Somchai said he had focused his decision on two key questions - whether his court had jurisdiction over the case and whether the EC had mismanaged the electoral process.

Even though the EC cited a Constitution Court decision in 2004 as its defence evidence, which it claimed proved its independent management of the polls, the verdict was not enough to provide them with blanket immunity from judicial scrutiny, he said.

The 2004 decision sanctioned the EC for passing judgement on campaign violations but did not cover administrative matters, such as the configuration of balloting booths, he added.

After establishing the judicial purview of his court, the judge then addressed the EC's decision to reposition the balloting booths forcing voters to turn their back on bystanders while ticking the ballot papers, despite booths having no rear partition to ensure the voter's privacy.

"At stake is whether the EC complied with the secret vote as guaranteed by Article 104 of the Constitution and Article 21 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which Thailand has ratified," the judge said.

Evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that bystanders, polling officials and other voters waiting their turn could observe how ballot papers were ticked in the balloting booths, hence the principle of the secret vote was compromised, he said.

"Without the secret vote, there is no way to safeguard genuine elections where people can express their free will," he said.

Reacting to the verdict, EC legal counsellor Natasak Suwanthaweesuk said he would have to consult with his superiors before deciding whether to file for an appellate review.

Natasak said he expected the Constitution Court to rule imminently on whether the configuration of the balloting booths was an intrinsic decision of the electoral process or an administrative matter.