Premium

Can a candidate be disqualified without notice for lapse in filing election expenses? Kerala High Court answers

The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1995 stipulate that a detailed procedure is contemplated before disqualification, and it is not an empty formality, the Kerala High Court observed.

kerala high court local body elections candidate poll expensesThe case of the petitioners is that no notice has been issued to them before the impugned disqualification orders, the Kerala High Court noted. (Image generated using AI)

Kerala High Court news: The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the State Election Commission cannot disqualify a candidate for failure to lodge election expense accounts without affording them an opportunity of hearing.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan allowed a batch of pleas filed by candidates who had contested the 2020 local body elections and were later disqualified by the State Election Commission for allegedly failing to submit accounts of poll expenses within the prescribed time.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan kerala high court Justice P V Kunhikrishnan said the State Election Commission must strictly follow the procedures set out.

“A mandatory notice is necessary to the person concerned before taking a decision regarding disqualification under Section 33 of the Act 1994, and the State Election Commission should see that the notice is served and his version is considered before ordering disqualification,” the Kerala High Court said on March 16.

‘Affects constitutional rights’

  • A reading of Rule 59 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1995 shows that a detailed procedure is contemplated before disqualification. It is not an empty formality.
  • If the accounts are not submitted within the time prescribed by the statute, a citizen will be disqualified from contesting an election for five years, a serious consequence that affects their constitutional rights.
  • Therefore, the State Election Commission must strictly follow the procedures set out in the Act and the Rules.
  • Dilution of the same may create serious consequences for the affected parties.
  • The case of the petitioners in these cases is that no notice has been issued to them before the impugned disqualification orders.
  • The standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission was unable to produce any documents to show that a notice had been served on the petitioners.
  • If that is the case, the impugned orders, as far as the petitioners are concerned, are to be set aside.

What the law says

  • Rule 59 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995, states that a report is to be submitted by the authorised officer regarding the submission of the account of the election expense to the state poll panel.
  • Immediately on the receipt of a report, the commission shall examine the same, and decide whether any contested candidate has failed to lodge the account of election expense within the time and in the manner required by the Act and Rules.
  • Thereafter, the State Election Commission decides under sub-rule (4) of the Rules 1995, whether a candidate has failed to lodge the account of election expenses, after issuing a written notice calling upon the candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified under Section 33 of the 1994 Act.
  • Any candidate who has been called upon to show cause under sub-rule (5) of Rules 1995 shall within 20 days of the receipt of such notice submit in respect of that matter a representation in writing to the State Election Commission, and that at the same time, send to the officer authorised by the commission, a copy of his representation together with a complete account of his election expenses if he had not already furnished such an account.
  • Thereafter, as per sub-rule (8) of Rule 59 of the Rules 1995, the state poll panel shall take a decision, after considering the representation submitted by the candidate and the comments of the authorised officer.

Candidates in 2020 LSG polls

  • The petitioners were candidates in the election conducted in the General Election to the Local Self-Government (LSG) institutions in Kerala in the year 2020.
  • They were disqualified as per the impugned orders invoking the powers under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
  • The petitioners contended that the disqualification order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without issuing a show-cause notice.

Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More

 

Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments