Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
PATHUMMA BEEVI – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18904 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.G.CLEETUS, SRI.N.V.PAUL
For the Respondents: SHRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL, SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, SRI. DHEERAJ A.S. - GP
Disobedience to party directives leading to invalid voting is grounds for disqualification under the Defection Act.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act - Section 3(1)(a) - Challenge to election commission's order declaring disqualification of the writ petitioner as a member of the Panchayat for willfully invalidating her vote against party directives - Evidence showed participation in decision-making that bound her actions, leading to a conclusion of disloyalty and subsequent disqualification. (Paras 4, 8, 9, 11, 12)
(B) Election Conduct - Evidence of voting irregularities must be examined in conjunction with party loyalty and adherence to directives, pointing out that willful disobedience to party policies cannot be treated lightly. (Paras 6, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and the second respondent were elected members of the Mynagappally Grama Panchayat, with allegations of defiance against party directives leading to a lost election.
Findings of Court:
The evidence supported the claim of disloyalty, affirming the commission's findings regarding the petitioner’s actions against party interests.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's failure to vote in accordance with party directive constituted disqualification under the Defection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner knowingly invalidated her vote in violation of party directives, qualifying under the Defection Act's provisions for disqualification.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election contestation and disqualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. evidence and findings on disloyalty. (Para 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. conduct justifying disqualification. (Para 7) |
| 4. legal arguments against disqualification. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P20 order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. No. 88 of 2015 in the petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein.
2. The writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein were the elected members of Mynagappally Grama Panchayat, Kollam, in the election held in November 2015, as the candidates of the Indian National Congress (INC). There are 22 wards in Mynagappally Grama Panchayat out of which the Congress led United Democratic Front got 10 seats and the CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) secured 9 seats. The BJP got 2 seats and the remaining one seat was won by an independent.
3. As the UDF got 10 seats, it decided to form the Panchayat board and the election petitioner (the 2nd respondent herein) was chosen to be the candidate of the INC/UDF for the post of Panchayat President and one Najeeb was the candidate for the post of Vice President, in the election scheduled to be held on 19.11.2015. The election petitioner contended that the DCC President had issued a whip to all the elected members of the Congress directing them to vote in favour of the persons mentioned above. A decision was taken which is reflected in Ext.A2 minutes (the original was produced as Exts.X1 and X1(a)) which shows that there was a parliamentary party meeting held on 17.11.2015, which decided to field the above candidates in which the writ petitioner also participated. Exts.X1 and X1(a) would show that the petitioner had expressed a desire to contest to the post of President.
4. It is alleged that in the election for the posts of president and vice president on 19.11.2015, the petitioner defied and disobeyed the directions of her party. She colluded with the rival LDF and deliberately made her vote invalid. Accordingly, the election petitioner got only 9 votes leading to the victory of the LDF candidate. It is based on the above contention that the election petition was filed under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection), Act (for short ‘the Defection Act’) for declaring that the writ petitioner committed defection and hence, disqualified to continue as a member of the Mynagappally Grama Panchayat and also for declaring her as disqualified to contest as a candidate in any election to the local body for six years.
5. The Election Commission, after considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 5, RW1 and Exts.A1 to A8, B1 to B8, X1 and X1(a) found that there was a decision taken by the parliamentary committee which is not disputed by the petitioner, on 17.11.2015 as seen from Exts.X1 and X1(a) deciding to field the election petitioner and one Najeeb as President and Vice President respectively. Ext.A1 is the register showing the party affiliation of the elected members, for which there is no dispute at all. The writ petitioner had contended that there was no decision taken by the party to field the election petitioner and Najeeb as candidates and that there was no whip issued.
6. The Election Commission also found that there is no proof to show that the whip was served on the petitioner and therefore, held that the second limb of Section 3 (1)(a) of the Defection Act was not attracted. However, it found that the petitioner despite fully knowing of the party decision, deliberately made her votes invalid in the election to the post of President and Vice President which was held in the morning and afternoon of 19.11.2015. The Election Commission also noted that the fact that the petitioner was a 3rd time member having won in 2005 and 2008 and therefore, the act of not voting in favour of the candidate nominated by her party was willful and cannot be treated as an innocent act on the part of the respondent.
