VIJAYAMMA RAJU Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P3 order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram disqualifying the petitioner from being a member of Koruthodu Grama Panchayat as provided by Section 3(1)(a) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and from contesting as a candidate in an election to any Local Authority for six years from the date of the order as provided by Section 4(3) of the Act is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is an elected member of Koruthodu Panchayat. She contested the General election held on 25.10.2010 as a candidate of Communist Party of India (CPI for short), a registered political party and the constituent of Left Democratic Front (LDF for short) from Ward No.XII of Koruthodu Grama Panchayat. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The office of President in Koruthodu Panchayat is reserved for "Scheduled Caste woman". In the General election, LDF won 5 seats out of total 13 seats in the said Panchayat. Among the 5 seats won by the LDF candidates, 4 seats were secured by the CPM and 1 seat by the CPI. The United Democratic Front (UDF for short) candidates won 7 seats. The Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP for short) secured one seat. Though the UDF secured 7 out of 13 seats, all the woman candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste fielded by the UDF were defeated and therefore, the UDF did not sponsor a candidate for the election to the post of President in the aforesaid Panchayat. The LDF sponsored Smt.P.V.Seethamma as their candidate for the post of President in the presidential election held on 8.11.2010. The petitioner herein cast her vote in favour of Smt.P.V.Seethamma and she got all 5 votes of elected members belonging to LDF.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that as per Rule 7 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of President and Vice President) Rules, 1995, it is not mandatory that the candidate has to be proposed and seconded by two other members if the post of President is reserved for SC woman. The petitioner alleges that she did not contest to the post of President and she did not file any nomination signed by her. She did not express her willingness to contest in the election and did not seek the support of UDF members either directly or indirectly and nobody proposed her name also. However, in the election held on 8.11.2010, 7 UDF members cast their votes in favour of the petitioner, though she did not file any nomination to contest the post of President. Since all the 7 UDF members cast their votes by writing the name of the petitioner and Smt.P.V.Seethamma has secured the vote of 5 LDF members only, the Returning Officer declared that the petitioner is the President of the Panchayat. The petitioner alleges that she was rather surprised in declaring her elected as the President of the Panchayat. However, her party leaders permitted her to serve as the President of the Panchayat and accordingly, the petitioner sworn as the President of the Panchayat on the same day. Later, the Secretary of the Local Committee of the CPI filed a petition to disqualify the petitioner under the provisions of the Act on the ground that she had voluntarily given up her membership in the party. The first respondent by Ext.P3 order disqualified the petitioner to continue as member of the Panchayat. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.