VARGHESE K. V. Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17598/2019, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2020, whereby the learned Single Judge affirmed Ext.P6 order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P.No.42 of 2017 dated 19.6.2019, disqualifying the appellant to continue as a member of Thiruvalla Municipality as provided under section 3(1)(a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, and consequently disqualified for contesting as a candidate in elections to any Local Self Government Institutions for a period of 6 years from the date of the order as provided under section 4(3) of Act, 1999. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the said order that the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge after taking into account the contentions put forth by the respective parties has entered into the following findings and conclusions at paragraphs 8 to 14 :

(2.) The paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that the order of the Election Commission disqualifying the appellant is not supported by any evidence and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not have sustained the same. It is also submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant had voluntarily given up membership of his party. That apart it is stated that in order to infer the giving up of membership, there should be strong and compelling circumstances in existence and further that a mere disagreement with District Level leadership was not sufficient to constitute disloyalty to the whole of the party and therefore, such a conduct would not attract the imperatives contained under section 3(1)(a) of Act, 1999. It is thus argued that the directions issued by the District Congress Committee President to vacate the chairmanship for accommodating the 2 nd respondent was in contravention of a general direction issued by the State Level Apex Body of the party and therefore, the defiance shown to the DCC President's order cannot be termed as disloyalty to the party.

(3.) Yet another predominant contention advanced is that the learned Single Judge has even gone to the extent of saying that if a member of a political party defies any political directives in relation to the affairs of the local body, that amounts to voluntarily giving up membership of such political party. But such a view cannot hold the test of law since the local body is governed by a statute and a political party which is an outside body as far as a statute is concerned has only a limited role to play in its administration. Therefore, the point that is raised is that the proposition that in directive is liable to be obeyed is an over statement. It was also submitted that there was no understanding and if at all there was such understanding, it has no sanctity as it is opposed to the acclaimed policy of the State. Leadership of the party and if at all any defiances therefore shown to be a directive of the District leadership on the basis of such an unlawful understanding would not amount to disloyalty to the party and would not attract the consequences of section 3(1)(a) of Act, 1999.