It was recently reported that the Ukrainian Supreme Court decided to invalidate the results of the recent Ukrainian presidential elections thus paving the way for fresh elections. It is interesting to note that the court's decision was merely in the interest of protecting the rights of voters and ensuring that a fair and transparent election process was conducted.

I'm sure the decision was received well by most Ukrainians and those outside. Knowing that there is an independent institution always eager and willing to listen and protect the democratic rights of individuals is definitely a big relief.

One wonders if Malaysians could rely on their courts to protect their rights if a similar incident occurs here. In such disputes, judges are expected to perform their duty without fear or favour and most importantly, with the interests of democracy as their top and foremost priority.

Of course, through the years we have seen many election petitions being brought to the election courts here. The outcome of some went down well with the voters while some others just could not be digested at all.

For instance, I remember once in the 80s in Johor where an election judge nullified the results of a state seat and called for fresh elections simply because the manner in which ballot boxes were transported created the doubt of having being tampered with.

In this case, the judge imposed a high standard of transparency as a criteria for a free and fair election.

But we have also seen a judge disqualifying a successful candidate at a parliamentary seat in Kuala Lumpur in the 90s. Instead of calling for a fresh election, he robbed the rights of the voters by declaring the candidate with the second highest votes as the winner (in this case there was also another independent candidate contesting for the seat).

Therefore, we are still lagging behind in terms of independent judicial reviews of an election process unlike voters in Ukraine and even some Third World countries like India where the courts and the election commission are among the most independent in the region.

Unfortunately, of late new and abnormal criteria are being introduced here which would further smear the already tainted image of the courts. In one recent case, the presiding election court judge agreed that there were irregularities in the voting process for one parliamentary and state seat in Selangor.

However, instead of calling for a fresh election he refused to accept the petition on grounds that despite the irregularities, the petitioner had failed to proof that they would influence the final results.

I am sure if such a petition were to appear in Ukraine or India, an immediate fresh election would have been ordered.