Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10392
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
KRISHNAKUMAR .S – Appellant
Versus
KADAKKAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C)/3897/2020
Defying a political party's whip can result in disqualification under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, ensuring party discipline in local governance.
Headnote:
Disqualification - Local Governance - Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 - Sections 3(1), 4 - The court upheld the election commission's ruling that the petitioner was disqualified due to defiance of a party whip, emphasizing adherence to party directives under the defection act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, elected member of a local governing body, abstained from a meeting concerning a No Confidence Motion against a committee chair due to party directives, leading to claims of disqualification based on the Prohibition of Defection Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not diligent in defending himself and noted that the claims of procedural inadequacy were largely incorrect, as the election commission provided opportunities for participation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was disqualified for defying a party whip and whether due process was followed in the proceedings against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that failure to adhere to party directives can lead to disqualification under the Prohibition of Defection Act and observed that procedural fairness was maintained.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was elected to the Committee of Kadakkavoor Grama Panchayat in the election held during November, 2015 representing the political party, Indian National Congress(I). As a member of the Committee of the Panchayat, the petitioner was also elected to the Development Standing Committee of the Panchayat consisting of four members, of which the remaining three members belonged to the political party, CPI(M). One among the said three members of the Standing Committee belonging to the political party CPI(M) was the Chairman of the said Standing Committee. A No Confidence Motion was moved by the remaining two members in the Standing Committee belonging to the political party CPI(M) against the Chairman of the said Committee belonging to their own political party. The petitioner did not attend the meeting scheduled to move the No Confidence Motion.
Consequently, the No Confidence Motion failed.
2. The third respondent, another member of the Panchayat belonging to the political party Indian National Congress(I), thereupon preferred Ext.P1 petition before the State Election Commission under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 alleging that the competent authority of Indian National Congress(I) had in fact issued a whip to the petitioner directing to support the No Confidence Motion moved against the Chairman of the Development Standing Committee of the Panchayat; that the petitioner abstained from the meeting scheduled for moving the No Confidence Motion defying the whip issued by the party and the petitioner is therefore disqualified to continue as a member of the Panchayat in terms of Section 3 (1) of the . The State Election Commission allowed Ext.P1 petition and declared that the petitioner is disqualified for being a member of Kadakkavoor Grama Panchayat and also disqualified from contesting as a candidate in election to any local bodies for a period of six years. Ext.P10 is the order issued by the State Election Commission on Ext.P1 petition. Ext.P10 is under challenge in the writ petition.
3. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that since the counsel for the petitioner was unable to appear before the State Election Commission on 14.05.2019, on which day, the case stood posted for the evidence of the third respondent, he preferred Ext.P11 application for adjournment of the matter and the impugned order was passed without considering the said application, after setting the petitioner ex parte in the proceedings. According to the petitioner, in a case of this nature, the State Election Commission ought to have afforded to the petitioner an effective opportunity to contest the petition instituted against him.
4. A statement has been filed by the State Election Commission as directed by the court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.
6. The impugned order indicates that the State Election Commission has found on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the third respondent that the petitioner abstained deliberately from the meeting convened for moving the No Confidence Motion against the Chairman of the Development Standing Committee of the Panchayat in defiance to the whip issued by the political party in whose ticket he was elected to the Committee of the Panchayat and the petitioner is, therefore, disqualified not only for being a member of the Panchayat but also from contesting as a candidate in election to any other local bodies in the State for a period of six years.
7. Along with the statement, the State Election Commission has made available the extract of the diary maintained in respect of Ext.P1 petition as Annexure R2(a). It is evident from the said diary extract that Ext.P11 application was though allowed by the State Election Commission on 14.5.2019, the third respondent did not give evidence on 14.05.2019. Instead, the third respondent
