Kerala Panchayat Raj Act | No Disqualification For Failure To File Election Expenses Without Notice, Hearing: High Court

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the common judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging disqualification orders issued under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

The petitioners were candidates in the election conducted in the General Election to the Local Self-Government Institutions in Kerala in the year 2020. They were disqualified under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioners contended that the order disqualifying them was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and without issuing a show-cause notice.

The Court examined Section 33 of the Act, which empowers the SEC to disqualify candidates for failure to lodge accounts, and Rule 59 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995, which prescribes the procedure for such action.

While Section 33 grants substantive power to disqualify, Rule 59 lays down a procedural framework, including submission of a report by the District Election Officer, preliminary scrutiny, issuance of show-cause notice, opportunity for the candidate to submit a representation within 20 days, consideration of the representation and further enquiry before final decision.

The Court emphasized that this procedure is not a mere formality but a mandatory safeguard, particularly given the serious consequence of a five-year disqualification from contesting elections.

“Therefore, a reading of Rule 59 of the 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, serious consequences will follow. A citizen will be disqualified from contesting an election for 5 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.” Court observed.

The Court further added that the 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 provide an opportunity to be heard for the person.

The Court noted that the State Election Commission was unable to produce any documents to show that notice had been served on the petitioner and hence set aside the order disqualifying the petitioner. The Court has also granted liberty to SEC to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Case Title: Dhanya Devadas v The Kerala State Election Commission and Ors. and connected cases

Case No: WP(C) 39330/ 2025 and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 173

Counsel for Petitioner: O.D Sivadas, Vinaya V. Nair, KR. Rajkumar, Jagadeesh Lakshman, R.K. Rakesh, Sreelakshmi P.S, Nandida Sebastian, Abhilash S. Francis, Sajan Vargheese K., Fadhi Rahman, Pushparajan Kodoth, K Jayesh Mohankumar, Vandana Menon, Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha, Anil S. Kartha, Suresh G., Sharath Eldo Philip, Sreeumar G, Ananthsankar A. Kartha, Padma Lakshmi, Erfan Ebrahim Sait, Ammu B.

Counsel for Respondent: Deepu Lal Mohan (SC - State Election Commission), Deepa K R (Spl. GP), K. Mohanakannan, Liji J. Vadakedom, Rajeev V.K, Athul V Vadakkedom, Jayasree.K.J, P.T. Rani, M. Sasindran, M. Muhammed Shafi