SEC Can't Rely On Uncontroverted Statement Of One Party: Kerala HC Allows Cross-Examination Of Gram Panchayat Secy By Candidate Who Was Forced To Resign
The Kerala High Court while allowing a plea under the Panchayati Raj Act, enumerated the need for adherence to principles of natural justice in the examination of witnesses in cases of Election matters.These observations came in a plea by the petitioner, who was allegedly forced to resign from a Gram Panchayat seat reserved for scheduled caste candidates, in a deceitful manner, and not allowed...
The Kerala High Court while allowing a plea under the Panchayati Raj Act, enumerated the need for adherence to principles of natural justice in the examination of witnesses in cases of Election matters.
These observations came in a plea by the petitioner, who was allegedly forced to resign from a Gram Panchayat seat reserved for scheduled caste candidates, in a deceitful manner, and not allowed to cross-examine the secretary of the Gram Panchayat before whom he was made to submit his resignation.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held: “it is the duty of the State Election Commission to ask the petitioner whether he intends to cross examine the Secretary who gave the statement. A perusal of the statement recorded by the State Election Commission would not show that any such question was put by the Election Commission regarding the right of the petitioner to cross examine the Secretary. Relying on an uncontroverted statement of one party without giving an opportunity to the other side to cross examine cannot be relied on.
The petitioner had contested in the Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat elections in the seat for the scheduled caste candidates. Petitioner belongs to Mogar Caste, and submitted that his mother tongue is Kannada, he does not know how to read or write in Malayalam.
The petitioner argued that his signature was obtained under threat and he was made to accompany a group of people to the office of the Mogral Grama Panchayat to hand over a piece of paper to the Secretary. According to him, it was only later that he realized that it was a resignation letter written in Malayalam by someone else.
The petitioner subsequently submitted a detailed representation before the State Election Commission under Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules, 2000 which stipulates that any person having a dispute regarding the resignation of the president, vice president or members may within 15 days prefer a petition before the State Election Commission for its decision.
The Election Commission recorded the statement of the secretary of the panchayat and dismissed the petitioner's application, it was argued.
The counsel for the respondents submitted that neither Section 155 (resignation of president, vice president or members) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act nor Rule 5 of the Rules stipulate any procedure to be followed while deciding the matter.
Upon hearing the parties, the bench pointed out that a perusal of S.155 of the Act, 1994 would show that there is a specific role for the Secretary of the Panchayat in accepting a resignation letter of the President, Vice-President, or members of a Panchayat. It held:
“The Secretary of the Panchayat gave a statement before the State Election Commission in tune with Sec. 155 of the Act, 1994 and Rule 5 of the Rules, 2000 deposing that the petitioner submitted the resignation after putting signature. A reading of the statement of the Secretary of the Panchayat which is made available by the Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, it is clear that the Secretary gave a statement against the pleadings of the petitioner in the petition.”
Thus, the court concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to cross-examine the Secretary who stated about the acceptance of the resignation later.
Accordingly, it set aside the Election Commission's order and directed the Election Commission to reconsider the matter and allow the petitioner to cross-examine.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates T Madhu, CR Saradamani, Vrinda TS and Renjish S Menon
Counsel for Respondents: Advocate M Muhammed Shafi
Case Title: Deekshit VR v. The State of Kerala
Case Number: WP (C) No. 42965 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 94