The validity of service of a party whip is crucial for disqualification under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act; improper consideration of such service undermines due process in election disputes.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.19905 of 2023 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.19905 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) to call for the records which lead to the issuance of Ext. P4 and to issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same;

ii) to declare that petitioner is not disqualified from contesting elections in local authorities as provided under Sec.4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act 1999.”

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1^st respondent is an agriculturist actively involved in social activities and was a member of Thidanadu Grama Panchayath in Meenachil Taluk of Kottayam District. He was elected, pursuant to the election conducted to the local bodies in November 2015 from Ward No.4 of Thidanadu Grama Panchayath as a candidate of the political party Kerala Congress (Mani), which had coalition with United Democratic Front (‘UDF’ for short). After the election, the appellant was elected as the President of the Grama Panchayath. A no-confidence motion was moved against the appellant on 15.05.2018. The motion was signed by 6 out of 14 members of the Grama Panchayath. The no-confidence motion was taken up for discussion, and 8 members who were present in the meeting voted in favour, and the appellant was removed from the post of President of Grama panchayath as seen from Ext.P1 minutes of the meeting dated 15.05.2018. Alleging that the 1^st respondent and another member violated the whip issued by district-level leaders of respective political parties, the appellant approached the 3^rd respondent, Kerala State Election Commission (‘Election Commission' for short), by filing Ext.P2 - O.P. No. 53 of 2018 against the 1^st respondent and O.P.No.54 of 2018 against the other member. In the O.P., the 1^st respondent entered appearance and filed Ext.P3 objections, disputing the contentions and specifically stating that there was no whip issued as contended.

3.1. According to the 1^st respondent, during evidence, the appellant could not prove that there was service of whip on the 1^st respondent. There was no publishing or reading of the same in the committee convened for discussing the no-confidence motion. According to the 1^st respondent, without taking into consideration any of the issues involved in the case, the 3^rd respondent allowed the O.P. through Ext.P4 order and declared that the 1^st respondent is disqualified for contesting as a candidate in any election to any local authority for a period of six years from the date of the order impugned. It is held in Ext.P4 that there was service of whip as required under law. Hence, challenging Ext.P4, the 1^st respondent preferred the writ petition.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single judge by the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2025 disposed of the writ petition. Paragraphs 6, 7, and 9 and the operative portion of the said judgment, which are relevant while considering the contentions of the parties in this writ appeal, read thus:

“6. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the impugned