The main legal point established in the judgment is that an elected member's disloyalty to a political party, demonstrated through actions such as voting for candidates from a rival faction, can lead to voluntary abandonment of membership and subsequent disqualification.

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3, an order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission on 26/07/2011 in O.P. No.69/2010, by which it is declared that the writ petitioner has been disqualified from being Councilor of Changanaserry Municipal Council as provided under section 3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and from contesting as a candidate in any election to the local authority for a period of six years from the date of order. This order came to be passed in a petition filed by the second respondent herein, under section 4 of the Act.

2. The short facts involved in the filing of Original Petition No.69/2010 before the Commission are as under;

Writ petitioner and the second respondent were elected as members of the Municipality in the year 2010. They belong to the political party, Kerala Congress (M) [hereinafter referred as 'KC(M)']. Out of 37 wards in the said Municipality, 21 were won by United Democratic Front (for short 'UDF'), a coalition, out of which six were from KC(M). UDF got majority to rule the Municipality. A meeting was convened on 06/11/2010 to elect the parliamentary party office bearers and the whip. Second respondent was elected as the parliamentary party leader and chief whip. Elections were held to the post of Chairperson and Vice-Chairman on 08/11/2010 and the Standing Committees on 18/11/2010. It is alleged that the second respondent, in his capacity as Parliamentary party leader, issued direction to all the KC(M) members to vote in support of members of UDF and its independents. Despite the said direction, petitioner voted in favour of a CPI(M) candidate, in the election to the post of members of Welfare Standing Committee ignoring the whip and therefore it is contended that the petitioner acted in violation of the whip and the said action amounts to defection. It is also alleged that the petitioner had voluntarily given up his membership from KC(M) party, having supported Left Democratic Front (for short 'LDF') and thereby committed defection.

3. Writ petitioner filed written statement, inter alia stating that two whips were issued by the 2nd respondent, one for the post of Chairperson and another to the post of Vice-Chairman. In regard to the Standing Committees for Welfare and Health, the direction was to cast conscience vote. It is therefore contended that there was no violation of whip and the petitioner had not abandoned his membership in the KC(M) party.

4. The Commission relied upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 on behalf of the second respondent and DWs 1 to 3 on behalf of the petitioner. Reliance was placed by the second respondent on Exts.P1 to P11 and by the petitioner on Exts.R1 to R13. Exts.X1 to X7 were summoned and marked. The Commission, after evaluating the evidence found that, the second respondent's election as the whip of KC(M) was not disputed, Ext.R1 produced by the writ petitioner as the whip issued for the election on 18/11/2010 is not a genuine document, Exhibit P6(a) the minutes of KC(M) contains the signature of the petitioner which evidences the fact that he had received the whip issued by second respondent, all other KC(M) candidates voted in favour of UDF candidates and on account of the vote casted by the writ petitioner, the UDF candidate lost to CPI(M) candidate. The petitioner also voted in favour of other CPI(M) candidates by giving preferential votes and all of them were elected as members of Welfare Standing Committee. The finding, therefore, is that the petitioner voted in favour of CPI(M) nominees as against the directions given by the petitioner to vote in favour of UDF candidates. It is also found that though the petitioner was the UDF candidate to the Welfare Standing Committee, he did not cast his vote for him. All his preferential votes were given to nominees of CPI(M) and all of them won in that election. The Commission also relied upon the judgments in Varghese v.