The decision of the State Election Commission regarding disqualifications under the Defection Act is final, and interim orders that allow contesting elections despite such disqualifications are not sustainable.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.40294 of 2025 is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the interim order dated 11.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the 1^st respondent herein, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 23.10.2025 of the 2^nd respondent State Election Commission in O.P.No.8 of 2023, which was one filed by the appellant herein, invoking the provisions under Section 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 , for declaring that the 1^st respondent herein-petitioner committed defection and hence disqualified to continue as member of Pulincunnoo Grama Panchayat, and for declaring her as disqualified to contest as a candidate in any election to the local authorities for a period of six years. By Ext.P7 order dated 23.10.2025, the 2^nd respondent State Election Commission allowed O.P.No.8 of 2023 and declared that the 1^st respondent herein-petitioner is disqualified for being member of Pulincunnoo Grama Panchayat, as provided under Section 3 (1) of the , and she was declared as disqualified from contesting as a candidate in an election to any local authorities for a period of six years from the date of that order, as provided under (3) of the said Act. The further relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.40294 of 2025 is a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 notification dated 03.02.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent State Election Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995, and Kerala Municipality (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995, publishing the up-to-date list of election symbols; a declaration that the is unconstitutional, arbitrary and beyond the legislative competence of the State; and a declaration that Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995 is unconstitutional, arbitrary and beyond the legislative competence of the State.

2. On 31.10.2025, when W.P.(C)No.40294 of 2025 came up for admission, it was admitted on file. On 11.11.2025, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the interim order, which reads thus;

“This writ petition was admitted on 31.10.2025 because a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner.

The learned senior counsel assisted by Adv.Bhavana Velayudhan pressed for an interim order because general election to the local bodies is declared and the petitioner wants to contest in the election.

Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent seriously opposed the prayer and submitted that he wants to file a counter affidavit.

On the other hand, the learned senior counsel submitted that, since the election is already declared, unless the impugned order is stayed, there will be great difficulty for the petitioner to contest in the election.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner, I think the operation of the impugned order can be stayed for a period of three months. Therefore, the operation of the order dated 23.10.2025 in O.P.No.08 of 2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent is stayed for a period of three months.”

3. Challenging the interim order dated 11.11.2025 of th