Can a member of a District Child Welfare Committee contest local body polls? Kerala High Court says no

The Kerala High Court ruled last week that any person who receives from the government, honorarium or other remuneration for services would be barred from contesting local elections (Seena Johnson v. State of Kerala and Ors.). .A single-judge Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque was hearing a petition filed by a ward councillor serving as a member of the Child Welfare Committee in Ernakulam district. She had challenged a disqualification order passed against her by the State Election Commission. .The Court held that the payment received by her could be considered as 'honorarium', and was a type of remuneration for services rendered..“The fee paid to the petitioner is as a matter of right the petitioner is entitled to claim. This has been fixed in accordance with the Rules framed under the Juvenile Justice Act. It has a character of remuneration. It is not a gratuitous payment,” the court ruled..The petitioner had submitted that she was not an employee of the government to incur a disqualification under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. It was her argument that she was not drawing a salary or an honorarium the money which she was being paid was a ‘sitting fee’ to cover her expenses. .The question that arose before the court, therefore, was whether or not the payment she was receiving could be categorised as 'honorarium'..The Court found that her case was squarely covered by a previous ruling of the High Court which interpreted honorarium under the Kerala Municipalities Act to have a wider meaning to include any payments received in exchange for services rendered. Finding that the petitioner's fees, fixed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act Rules, was a species of honorarium, the Court refused to interfere with the State Election Commission Order.."'Honorarium' as referred under explanation (2) to Section 86 of the Municipality Act, therefore, is having a wider meaning to include any such payments received, not as a gratuitous payment, but taking note of any service rendered. Therefore, it is clear, any form of pecuniary benefit obtained would also come under the meaning of honorarium,” the court held..The Bench clarified however, that gratuitous payments were excluded from incurring disqualification..[Read Order]