"The judges are ready to hand down the verdict after examining written and verbal records relating to the [April 2] vote," Paiboon said, urging all interested parties to remain calm and avoid rushing to predict the verdict.

 "No one should speculate on whether the balloting results will be cancelled before having a chance to study the verdict in detail," he said.

The verdict will be based on the petition filed by Thammasat University law lecturers.

The petition raised four legal issues: the validity of the Royal Decree for the vote; the privacy of voters while marking their ballots; the funding of small parties; and the endorsement of balloting results without a formal review.

Legal pundits said the ruling might not have to address all four issues.

"The key point is for the judges to decide whether any aspect of the electoral process has violated the Constitution and one offence is cause to invalidate the election outcome," a court official said, adding that the issue of voter's privacy may be a decisive factor.

Should the judges find the configuration of voting booths to have violated the confidentiality of balloting as guaranteed by article 104 of the Constitution, the April 2 election and the repeat vote will be invalid, he said.

The ruling will then have to spell out how the vote is to be cancelled, and it should be clear on how the whole issue should be rectified, so as to avoid further confusion.

Sources said yesterday that, in opposing the invalidation of the election outcome, certain judges cited precedents empowering the Election Commission to manage the balloting as deemed necessary, as in article 145 of the Constitution.

The judges are also expected to rule on Monday whether their ruling in 2000 gave the EC immunity from judicial review.

Meanwhile, lecturers from Thammasat University's Faculty of Law will file another complaint against the EC with the Criminal Court next week, according to Banjerd Singkaneti, one of their number.

They will claim the EC acted unfairly by favouring some political parties. They will also allege the commission violated the Supreme Court's ruling that prohibited candidates from switching constituencies in the second round of voting on April 23. The EC allowed such candidacy for the third round of voting, scheduled for last Saturday, Banjerd said. Although the third round was stopped by a court injunction, the EC still committed a crime.

The plan to file the additional complaint followed discussion among the university's lecturers about whether the Constitution Court, in its ruling number 52/46, gave the EC authority to act as it did, he said.