Susan George vs Nirmala Mathews on 24 November, 2025

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Susan George vs Nirmala Mathews on 24 November, 2025

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28287 of 2022 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. During the general elections held for the Local Self- Government Institutions in November 2015, the appellant and the 1st respondent were elected as members of Koiprum Block Panchayat representing Thelliyoor Division Ward No.3, and Poovathoor Division Ward No.11, respectively. The 1st respondent contested the election as the official candidate of the Indian National Congress, and the appellant as the official candidate of Kerala Congress(M). There were 13 wards (divisions) in Koiprum Block Panchayat. In the election, Left Democratic Front ('LDF' in short) won 6 seats and United Democratic Front ('UDF' in short) won 5 seats. One of the independent members agreed to give support to the UDF to form the Board. Thus, the LDF and UDF have got equal number of seats. The one and only member of the BJP 3 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 did not participate in the election to the posts of President and Vice President, and the said election was done through a lot system. The 1st respondent was elected as the President, and the independent member was elected as the Vice President in the lot. While so, the LDF members moved a no-confidence motion against the President of the Block Panchayat, and it was tabled for discussion on 13.12.2018 at 10 a.m. The appellant participated in the meeting and cast her vote in support of the Motion, consequent on which the said Motion was passed.

2.1. According to the 1st respondent, after the election, the appellant gave a sworn declaration before the Secretary of Koiprum Block Panchayath, affirming that she had been elected as a candidate of Kerala Congress (M), having affiliation with UDF. When LDF members decided table a no-confidence motion against the President of the Block Panchayat, on 13.12.2018, the District Committee President of the Kerala Congress (M) issued a specific direction to the appellant either not to participate in the meeting scheduled for discussing the no-confidence motion or to defeat the no-confidence motion moved against the 1st respondent by casting 4 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 the vote against the Motion. Since the appellant refused to accept the whip issued to her, it was affixed in front of her house and also sent through registered post. Contending that the appellant intentionally defied the whip and acted against the interest of the political party and the UDF and hence voluntarily abandoned her membership from Kerala Congress (M) which fielded her as a candidate in the general election, the 1st respondent filed O.P. No.118 of 2018 before the Kerala State Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, ('Election Commission' in short) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act 1999 (the 'Defection Act', in short) for declaring that the appellant had committed defection and hence disqualified to continue as a member of Koiprum Block Panchayat and also for declaring her as disqualified to contest any election to the local body for a period of 6 years.

2.2. The appellant opposed the petition filed by the 1 st respondent, contending that she has not violated the first and second limbs of clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Defection Act. Before the Election Commission, 5 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 from the side of the 1st respondent, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts. A1 to A8 documents were marked. From the side of the appellant, RW1 was examined, and Exts.B1 and B2 documents were marked before the State Election Commission. Based on the pleadings and evidence, the Election Commissioner raised two points for consideration such as, (i) whether the appellant has committed defection as provided by Section 3 of the Defection Act, and (ii) whether the appellant is liable to be declared as disqualified to continue as a member.

2.3. After a detailed discussion of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Election Commission by Ext.P1 order dated 30.06.2022 allowed the original petition and the appellant is declared as disqualified to be a member of Koiprum Block Panchayat as provided by Section 3(1)(a) of the Defection Act. The appellant is further declared as disqualified from contesting as a candidate in any election to the local bodies for a period of 6 years as provided by Section 4(3) of the Defection Act.

2.4. Challenging Ext.P1 order, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.28287 of 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of 6 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2025 dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before this Court with the present writ appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that in Ext.P1 order, the Election Commission found that Ext.A5 copy of the whip produced in those proceedings is not proved as served to the appellant. Even the genuineness of Ext.A5 was doubted by the Election Commission. However, it was found that by voting in favour of the no-confidence motion moved by the rival coalition, she had incurred disqualification of voluntarily giving up membership in the political party and voluntarily backing away from the coalition. The learned counsel vehemently argued that there is no evidence adduced before the Election Commission to prove that the appellant was directed by the political party in which she was a member at the time of the election, directing her 7 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 to cast or not cast the vote in the no-confidence motion held on 13.12.2018. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant acted against the direction of her political party. Moreover, the appellant was on suspension during the period of the no-confidence motion, and hence she is not bound by the directions of the party. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in Sandeep M. T. v. Kerala State Election Commission [2015 (5) KHC 133] in support of his arguments.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission would submit that in Ext.P3 objection filed by the appellant before the Election Commission, all the contentions regarding the political party and coalition raised by the 1st respondent in the original petition are admitted. The contention of the appellant is that, as she was dismissed from Kerala Congress (M) on 30.10.2018, she was not bound by the whip or the direction of the party. Even if a member expelled from the party votes against the coalition, that will be in effect a voluntary giving up of her party. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in G. 8 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 Viswanathan v. Hon'ble Speaker Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly [(1996) 2 SCC 353] and that of this Court in Varghese V.V. v. Kerala State Election Commission [2009 (3) KHC 42], Chenthamara K v. Kerala State Election Commission [2016 (1) KLT SN 23] and Shameena Ibrahimkutty v. Kerala State Election Commission [ 2020 (6) KHC 354].

6. Before entering into the merit of these contentions raised by the parties to this writ appeal, it would be appropriate to refer Sections 3 and 4 of the Defection Act, which read thus:

"3. Disqualification on ground of defection (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994), or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), or in any other law for the time being in force, subject to the other provisions of this Act,-

(a) if a member of a local authority belonging to any political party voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party, or if such member, contrary to any direction in writing issued by the political party to which he belongs or by a person or authority authorised by it in this behalf in the manner prescribed, votes or abstains from voting,-

(i) in a meeting of a Municipality, in an election of its 9 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of a Standing Committee; or

(ii) in a meeting of a Panchayat, in an election of its President, Vice President, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of the Standing Committee; or in an voting on a no-confidence motion against any one of them, except a member of a Standing Committee;

(b) if an independent member belonging to any coalition withdraws from such coalition or joins any political party or any other coalition, or if such a member, contrary to any direction in writing issued by a person or authority authorised by the coalition in this behalf in the manner prescribed, votes or abstains from Voting,-

(i) in a meeting of a Municipality, in an election of its President, Vice President, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of the Standing Committee; or

(ii) in a meeting of a Panchayat in an election of its President, Vice-President, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of the Standing Committee; or in an voting on a no-confidence motion against any one of them except a member of a Standing Committee;

(c) if an independent member not belonging to any coalition, joins any political party or coalition; he shall be disqualified for being a member of that local authority.

Explanation.-- For the purpose of the section an elected member of a local authority shall be deemed to be a member belonging to the political party if there is any such 10 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 party, by which he was set up or given support as a candidate for the election.

"(2) The direction in writing issued for the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be given to the members concerned in the manner as may be prescribed and copy of such direction in writing shall be given to the Secretary of the Local Self Government Institution concerned.

(3) Where any dispute arises regarding the direction issued under this section between the political party or coalition concerned and the member authorised in this behalf as prescribed under sub-section (2), the direction in writing issued in this regard by the person authorised by the political party from time to time to recommend the symbol of the political party concerned for contesting in election shall be deemed to be valid."

4. Decision on question as to disqualification on ground of defection (1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a local authority has become subject to disqualification under the provisions of this Act a member of that local authority or the political party concerned or a person authorised by it in this behalf may file a petition before the State Election Commission for decision.

(2) The State Election Commission shall, after making such enquiry as it deems necessary, decide whether such member has become subject to such disqualification or not 11 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 and its decision thereon shall be final.

(3) Where the State Election Commission decides that a member has become subject to disqualification under sub- section (2), he shall cease to be a member from the date of such decision and shall be disqualified for contesting as a candidate in an election to any local authority for six years from that date. (underline supplied)

7. In Sandeep M.T. [2015 (5) KHC 133], in the Grama Panchayat consisted of 23 divisions, INC won in 13 divisions, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) in 9 Divisions, and one division was won by Kerala Congress (M) [KC(M)] which is a partner of United Democratic Front (UDF) along with INC. The 2nd respondent therein, who is an INC member, was elected as President of the Panchayat. On 25.02.2012, the appellants in that case together submitted a no-confidence motion to remove the President. The no-confidence motion was tabled for consideration by the members of the Panchayat in the meeting on 08.03.2012. 2 nd respondent contended that the President of Thrissur District Congress Committee issued a whip and direction to the appellants as well as to other members directing its party members from abstain from the proposed no-confidence motion. The whip and 12 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 direction were affixed in a conspicuous part of the residence of the appellants in the presence of two witnesses. When the resolution was taken up for consideration in the meeting on 08.03.2012, the 2nd respondent alleges that the appellants, in collusion with the rival coalition of LDF, voted in favour of the no-confidence motion, thereby unseating him. This, according to the 2nd respondent, amounts to defection and therefore he sought for a declaration that the appellants committed defection.

8. In Sandeep M.T. [2015 (5) KHC 133], after considering the rival contentions, a Division Bench of this Court held thus:

"12. As far as the allegation of the 2nd respondent regarding service of whip is concerned, it is apparent that the Commission proceeded on the basis that there is no valid whip or that the 2nd respondent did not have a contention regarding violation of the whip. What was considered by the Commission was regarding the first limb of Section 3(1)(a) that is, whether the appellants have voluntarily given up membership of the political party. To attract the above factual situation, there has to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the appellants have voted in favour of the no confidence motion contrary to the directions issued by the political party and that it was by colluding or conniving with the members of LDF". [Underline Supplied] 13 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971

9. In G.Viswanathan [(1996) 2 SCC 353], the appellants are two members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected in the general elections held in 1991. Both of them were candidates set up by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Mr. Viswanathan was elected from Arcot Legislative Assembly constituency whereas Mr. Azhagu Thirunavukkarasu was elected from Orathanadu constituency. Both of them were expelled from the AIADMK party on January 8, 1984. On March 16, 1994, the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly declared the two appellants as 'unattached' members of the Assembly. Enclosing certain papers and other documents, one Subburethinam, Member of the Assembly, informed the Speaker that both the appellants have joined another (new) party called Maru Malarchi Dravida Munnetra Khazhagam, and hence they should, as per the provisions of law, be disqualified from the membership of the Assembly. On March 6, 1995, the Secretary Legislative Assembly issued a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defections) Rules, 1986 and called for the comments of the appellants on the 14 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 representation made by Subburethinam to disqualify them. The appellants filed Writ Petition Nos. 3562 and 3563 of 1995 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and assailed the said notice of the Secretary of the Assembly, dated March 6, 1995. By the order dated March 10, 1995, those writ petitions were dismissed. The appellants then filed representations before the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, wherein the Speaker held that the appellants incurred disqualification for being members of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly under Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Clause (a) of sub para (1) of paragraphs 2 of the Tenth Schedule and had eased to be members of the Assembly with immediate effect. The appellants then filed writ petitions assailing the aforesaid order of the Speaker. They also filed interlocutory applications praying for an interim injunction to restrain the Speaker from giving effect to the aforesaid order. Though initially an order of injunction was passed, the learned Single Judge vacated the injunction. Aggrieved by the orders vacating the interim injunction, the appellants filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High 15 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 Court of Judicature at Madras. The Division Bench of the High Court, noticing that the writ appeals and writ petitions raised the same issues, heard them together and disposed of them by a common judgment. Against that common judgment, the appellants approached the Apex Court with Special Leave Petitions.

10. In G.Viswanathan [(1996) 2 SCC 353], the Apex Court considered the interpretation to be placed on paragraph 2(1)(a) read with the explanation thereto of the Tenth Schedule. The Court, while answering the point, does a member of a House, belonging to a political party, become disqualified as having voluntarily given up his membership of such political party on his joining another political party after his expulsion from the former, held thus:

"11. It appears that since the explanation to paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule provides that an elected member of a House shall be deemed to belong to the political party, if any by which he was set up as a candidate for election as such member, such person so set up as a candidate and elected as a member shall continue to belong to that party. Even if such a member is thrown out or expelled from the 16 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 party, for the purposes of the Tenth Schedule he will not cease to be a member of the political party that had set him up as a candidate for the election. He will continue to belong to that political party even if he is treated as 'unattached'. The further question is when does a person 'voluntarily give up' his membership of such political party as provided in paragraph 2(1) (a)? The act of voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party may be either express or implied. When a person who has been thrown out or expelled from the party which set him up as a candidate and got elected joins another (new) party it will certainly amount to his voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party which had set him up as a candidate for election as such member. (Underline Supplied)

11. In Varghese V.V. [2009 (3) KHC 42] the contention before the Division Bench of this Court by the appellant was that in the absence of whip, the writ petitioners only exercised their conscience vote and thus there is no disqualification and in the absence of any specific whip, it has to be inferred that the elected members were free to exercise their vote according to their free will. It was also contended by the appellant that the expression 'voluntarily giving up' is an abstract expression and, in the modern democratic trends, in the absence of any specific direction from 17 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 the designated person-whip, the elected member is absolutely free to act according to his own free will. The popular concept of 'political morality' has nothing to do with the Election Commission or the Court while deciding whether an elected member has become disqualified. The appellant urged that a decision on the disqualification has to be taken on evidence which is positive, reliable and unequivocal, as held by the Supreme Court in G. Viswanathan [1996 (2) SCC 353]. In Varghese V.V., this Court held thus:

"9. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ramakumar contends that in modern democracy the elected member is free to vote according to his conscience, in the absence of a specific whip, particularly in view of the modern trends in democracy - intra party groups. We are afraid, the Court will not be justified in taking judicial notice of such developments and in rewriting the law. The Court shall only analyse the facts and decide the case in accordance with law and upholding the spirit of laws. The law, as it stands now, is unambiguously clear that one has to be loyal to his political party. The situation would be different if the political party itself, taking note of such strange realities, permits the elected members to cast conscience vote. In such situations the whip itself is for decision by the individual 18 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 concerned according to his conscience. The Oxford dictionary defines conscience to mean 'the part of your mind that tells you whether your actions are right or wrong'. In the absence of a specific whip for conscience vote, an elected member, under law, is entitled and liable to cast only a conscious vote, being aware of the consequences of his decision, in terms of S.3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 on disqualification on the ground of defection on account of voluntarily giving up membership in the political party. Conscience vote is hence a matter of express whip in the absence of which an elected member is bound by the policies of his political party and he can cast only a conscious vote. That is nothing but an expected expression of his obligation to the political party and responsiveness to the people, by doing things carefully and correctly and if not the conduct would amount to betrayal of the political conscience which is impermissible under law. According to Harry S. Truman 'Democracy is based on the conviction that man has the moral and intellectual capacity, as well as the inalienable right, to govern himself with reason and justice'. The reason and justice are the two mandates of the conscious vote under S.3 of the Act. There is no case that the political party in which they belonged had given them the whip to vote according to their conscience". [Underline Supplied]

12. In Chenthamara K [2016 (1) KLT SN 23], the writ petitioners approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to 19 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 quash Ext.P9 common order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Kerala State Election Commission whereby the Election Commission allowed the original petitions filed by the 1 st respondent in that writ petition, concluding that the 2 nd respondent therein is a person who is competent to issue a direction in writing to the petitioners therein for exercising the vote favorably or unfavourably or to abstain from voting. In that order, the State Election Commission held that the 2nd respondent therein, in his capacity as the State President of the SJ(D) Party and who had recommended symbols to the petitioners while contesting the election, had issued a whip directing them to vote in favour of the no-confidence motion. By casting their vote, defying the said direction, the petitioners therein had become disloyal to the SJ(D) party and thus subjected to disqualification for being members of the Block Panchayat, as provided under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners therein were declared as disqualified for being members of the Block Panchayat, and they were also declared as disqualified for contesting as candidates in the election to any local 20 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 authorities for a period of six years from the date of the order, as provided under Section 4 (3) of the Act.

13. In Chenthamara K [ 2016 (1) KLT SN 23], one among us [Anil K Narendran. J] held thus:

"43. It is trite law that, disqualification for voluntarily giving up the membership of the political party to which one belongs is not dependent on any violation of the whip. As such, it is not necessary to hold that the member has violated the whip in order to conclude that he has voluntarily given up the membership of the political party to which he belongs. In the case on hand, indisputably the petitioners, who were the elected members of SJ(D) party in Chittoor Block Panchayat under UDF coalition opposed the no - confidence motion moved against RW 1 and defeated the said motion with the support of LDF members. It is nothing but an act of disloyalty and the moment the petitioners become disloyal to the Political party by their conduct in defeating the no - confidence motion with the support of the opposite faction, namely the LDF, the inevitable inference is that they have voluntarily given up their membership in the SJ(D) party.

44. In that view of the matter, the Commission cannot be said to have committed an illegality in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioners herein have become disloyal to the SJ(D) party and as such subjected to disqualification for being members of Chittoor Block Panchayat, as provided 21 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The moment the petitioners become disloyal to the Political party by their conduct in defeating the no - confidence motion with the support of the LDF they have voluntarily given up their membership in the SJ(D) party".

(Underline supplied)

14. In Shameena Ibrahimkutty [2020 (6) KHC 354], the petitioners who are members of Edathala Grama Panchayat based on an election held in the year 2010 approached this Court, challenging the order of the Kerala State Election Commission in a petition filed by the 2nd respondent in that writ petition, disqualifying them for contesting as candidates in an election to local authorities for a period of six years from the date of the order since they abstained from the no-confidence motion against the President of the Panchayat, who refused to step down as directed by his political party. When the no-confidence motion failed due to the absence of quorum, one of the members of the Panchayat approached the Election Commission for a declaration that the petitioners are disqualified under the Defection Act. The Election Commission, after adverting to the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were liable to be disqualified 22 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 under Section 3(1)(a) of the Defection Act. Challenging the said decision, the petitioners therein, and the President who refused to step down approached this Court with the writ petitions.

15. In Shameena Ibrahimkutty [2020 (6) KHC 354], a learned Single judge of this Court held thus:

"21. The direction issued by DCC President on 27/12/2013 is produced as Ext.P2. There is no dispute to the fact that M.A.M. Muneer was suspended. There is also no dispute to the fact that no - confidence motion was moved against M.A.M. Muneer as directed by the Congress party. When there is a direction issued by a political party to step down, and if it is not obeyed, that would attract the first limb of S.3(1)(a) relating to voluntarily giving up of membership. This Court in Faisal v. Abdulla Kunhi (2008 (3) KHC 267 :

2008 (2) KLJ 849 : 2008 (3) KLT 534 : ILR 2008 (3) Ker.

275) held that refusal to step down from presidentship would amount to voluntarily abandoning his party membership. The fact that M.A.M. Muneer was suspended and expelled from the party is not in dispute. These suspension and expulsion in relation to the conduct of M.A.M. Muneer related to the local authority. Therefore, on the admitted facts itself, M.A.M. Muneer is liable to be disqualified for abandoning the membership of his political party. The Judgment of the Apex Court in Viswanathan's case has not been overruled so far. It holds the field.

W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 Therefore, I need not upset the findings of the Election Commission on this ground". [Underline Supplied]

16. The facts of the instant case have to be analysed in the light of the provision quoted and the judgments referred to supra. There are some admitted facts in the present case. The appellant contested the election as a member of the political party, Kerala Congress (M), which admittedly had coalition with UDF in the panchayat election of the year mentioned in the writ petition. The UDF and LDF had equal strength, that is, six members each, in the block panchayat concerned is also admitted. The appellant cast her vote in the no-confidence motion brought by the LDF members against the President of the Panchayat on 13.12.2018 in favour of the LDF is also admitted. Similarly, the fact that, as on the date of the no-confidence motion, the appellant was expelled from Kerala Congress (M) is also not under dispute. Though the 1st respondent contends that the appellant was issued with Ext.A5 whip by PW5 examined before the Election Commission, it was found in Ext.P1 order of the Election Commission that Ext.A5 whip cannot be accepted as a genuine document. Therefore, the only point to be considered is as to whether the casting of the vote against the 24 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 interest of her political party or in other words, the political party on whose label the appellant contested and won the election, will disqualify her of voluntarily giving up membership and voluntarily backing away from coalition subjecting to disqualification as provided under Section 3 of the Defection Act.

17. In Sandeep M.T. [2015 (5) KHC 133], the Division Bench of this Court ruled in favour of the appellants, on facts. In that case, there was no conscious decision by the political party to instruct its members not to participate in the no-confidence motion. As discussed hereinabove, the appellant cast her vote in the no-confidence motion against UDF with which her political party, namely, Kerala Congress (M), had coalition at the time of the election and thereafter. PW5, the District Chairman of Kerala Congress (M), who was examined before the Election Commission and also RW1 had no case before the Election Commission that Kerala Congress (M) left or withdrew from the coalition at any point in time. There is no such case for the appellant either. Therefore, the facts of Sandeep M.T. [2015 (5) KHC 133], are not applicable to the instant case.

W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971

18. The casting of vote by the appellant against the interest of the political party, the banner under which she contested the election and won the seat, and thereby made the no-confidence motion to pass against the interest of the UDF with which her party had coalition, when analysed in the light of the principles laid down in G Viswanathan [(1996) 2 SCC 353], Varghese V.V. [2009 (3) KHC 42], Chenthamara K. [2016 (1) KLT SN 23] and Shameena Ibrahimkutty [2020 (6) KHC 354], it is only to be held that the appellant by casting such vote against the interest of her own political party, even though she was under suspension or expelled, has incurred the disqualification of voluntarily giving up membership in that political party.

19. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the impugned Ext.P1 order passed by the State Election Commission in its proper perspective. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be said as perverse or illegal, which warrants interference by exercising the appellate 26 W.A.No.2625 of 2025 2025:KER:89971 jurisdiction of this Court.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                                MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court