The main legal point established in the judgment is that findings of disqualification under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition and Defection) Act, 1999 must be supported by the pleadings and evidence. The court emphasized the importance of specific pleadings to put the opposite parties on notice of the allegations and rights or obligations sought to be enforced against them.

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the common order Ext.P13 of the Kerala State Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') whereby the petitioners are disqualified from being members of the Pallikkal Grama Panchayat, under Section 3(1)(a) of Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition and Defection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1999 Act') and for contesting in election in any local authority for a period of 6 years.

2. The 2nd respondent herein-the outseated President of Pallikkal Grama Panchayat, filed 6 Original Petitions (O.P. Nos. 6 to 12 of 2013) before the Commission against each of the petitioners herein seeking orders disqualifying the respondents. The undisputed facts are the following: Petitioners, the 2nd respondent and one Asbar contested and got elected as members of Pallikkal Grama Panchayat in the Panchayat election held in October 2010 as official candidates of Indian national Congress (INC for short) party. There are 13 wards in the Grama Panchayat and hence 13 seats; out of which INC candidates, who are under the UDF faction won 8 seats; CPI(M) won 4 seats and BJP won 1 seat. 2nd respondent herein was elected as President and respondent in O.P.7/2013-Pallikkal Naseer got elected as Vice President. The petitioners herein mooted a no-confidence motion against the 2nd respondent President, belonging to the very same INC on 26.3.2013. It was tabled for discussion to 10.4.2013. The 2nd respondent did not attend the meeting on 10.4.2013. All the 12 members, except Sri. Asbar of INC, who were present on 10.4.2013, voted in favour of the no-confidence motion, consequent to which it was carried and the President-the 2nd respondent was outseated. Immediately after the no- confidence motion was passed, the respondents were expelled from the Congress party.

3. The outseated President filed O.P. Nos 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of 2013, before the Commission under Section 4 of the 1999 Act. Allegations in the petitions Ext P1 to P6 were that the no-confidence motion was mooted in connivance with LDF and BJP and without consulting with and without getting permission from the District leadership, despite specific instructions to the respondents after discussion with them by the District leadership, including President Sri. Mohankumar and Varkala Kahar M.L.A, not to proceed with the motion and to defeat the motion, and in defiance of the direction of the District President Sri. Mohankumar, to vote against the motion and to protect the seat of President, the respondents voted in favour of the motion and got it carried. Her case was that even though the whip issued by the President was served by the Vice President Adv. Sudarsanan Pillai by affixture and whip was read over in the meeting by Sri. Abar, the petitioners herein intentionally defied the same and thus voluntarily given up their membership in INC, committed defection liable for disqualification under the 1999 Act.

4. The petitioners herein filed objections Ext P7 to P12. It was stated that the indifferent attitude of the 2nd respondent created problems in the smooth functioning of the Panchayat and created a rift between her and other members. Everybody wanted a change of President; she was asked several times to resign. The matter was communicated to the the higher leadership of INC(I) and they were thinking of removing her from the Presidentship. They denied the allegation as to collusion in mooting the no confidence motion; they denied the issuance of any whip or intimation or specific direction or decision from Sri. Mohankumar or Varkala Kahar about the stand of the political party as to the no confidence motion; they denied the allegation as to issuance and service of whip by affixture, reading of whip by Asbar and disputed the authority of Asbar to hand over the direction if any of DCC President to the returning Officer or Secretary, without the knowledge of parliamentary party leader. They also denied the allegation as to v