The Principal Munsiff Court of Kasaragod, in a recent ruling, declared the election of an IUML panchayat member void due to his failure to disclose a pending criminal case in his nomination papers. The court’s decision resulted in the runner-up of the December 2020 local body elections being declared the winner in Angakkalari ward (No 13) of Udma grama panchayat. Mohammed Haris, the IUML ward member who lost the seat due to this order, expressed his intention to challenge the decision in the District Court, stating, “Declaring an election void over non-disclosure of a criminal case is one thing. But to declare the candidate who lost the election as the winner is totally weird.”
The case began when the LDF’s CPM candidate, K N Abbas Ali Asif, who lost the election by 25 votes, discovered the undisclosed criminal case against the UDF candidate. Asif promptly challenged the election under Sections 88 and 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which empowered the Munsiff court to address grama panchayat election petitions.
The court’s decision, after three years of legal battles, would give the CPM a majority in the 21-member Udma grama panchayat, where currently the CPM holds 10 seats, the UDF has nine, and the BJP has two.
The disputed election took place on December 14, 2020, and the votes were counted on December 16. Notably, the winning candidate, Mohammed Haris, was out on bail during the panchayat election, facing charges of rioting and assaulting a CPM worker. However, he failed to declare this information in his election affidavit, using ‘NA’ in the column for criminal cases.
Haris explained that he did not disclose the case because he had reached a settlement with the complainant and intended to approach the High Court of Kerala to quash the case. However, the court took note of his admission of awareness of the pending case and the absence of a petition to quash it, deeming his election void.
The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, Section 52 (1A), mandates the disclosure of criminal cases by candidates in their Nomination Papers. Haris’s violation of this section was a key factor leading to the court’s decision.
The ruling, issued on October 31, instructed Haris to pay the costs of the proceedings to Abbas Ali Asif. Haris plans to appeal the decision in the District Court, arguing that while the Act provides reasons for disqualifying a candidate, it does not specify that a losing candidate can be declared the winner.
Post Your Comments