'Not Maintainable': MLA Mani C Kappan Objects To Plea Before Kerala High Court Seeking His Disqualification
Question of disqualification is referred to Governor, who has to obtain Election Commission's opinion and act accordingly, Kappan said.
Pala MLA Mani C. Kappan has contended that the writ petition filed by businessman Dinesh Menon seeking his disqualification following conviction in 4 cheque cases is not maintainable.
On September 1, a Mumbai court convicted Kappan in four separate cases and awarded imprisonments of 1 year each in three cases and 6 months in one case.
The plea has been filed seeking a direction to the Legislative Assembly Speaker to declare the seat in Pala as vacant and to the Election Commission of India to initiate proceedings for a bye-election in the constituency.
Menon relied on Section 8(3) of the Representation of people Act to say that Kappan's disqualification became automatic following his conviction in the cheque cases, all of which arose out of the same transaction.
Opposing the plea, Kappan has stated that the reliefs sought in the plea cannot be granted since there is an exclusive mechanism provided under the Constitution itself in the matter of disqualification of a sitting MLA. Referring to Article 192, it is submitted that the question regarding disqualification is to be referred to the Governor, who has to obtain the Election Commission's opinion and act according to it.
He has stated that the question of disqualification can only be considered by the Governor and cannot be adjudicated before the High Court. Moreover, no writ of mandamus can be issued by the Court to exercise the Governor's powers under the Constitution.
It is also contended that the petitioner has misconstrued the Constitution Bench's decision in K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan (2005) as the same does not lay down that sentences imposed in separate criminal proceedings can be integrated for automatic disqualification as per the RP Act.
Kappan has further stated that even if the cheques dishonoured arose out of the same transaction, that cannot convert four separate prosecutions, four separate judgments and four separate sentences into one conviction or one sentence for the purposes of Section 8(3).
“The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking for a declaration based on the calculated aggregate of the substantive sentences in the four independent cases as three and a half years which is not the legislative intention under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act…none of the four substantive sentences relied upon by the petitioner reaches two years,” states the counter.
Earlier this week, the High Court had asked if repeated convictions with sentences not exceeding to 2 years can avoid automatic disqualification of a legislator as per the RP Act.
Case No: WP(C) 31188 of 2026
Case Title: Dinesh Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Counsel for Kappan: Deepu Thankan, Ummul Fida