Coming out from political party and forming splinter group will not make another party: Karnataka High Court

Merely coming out from a political party and forming a separate group will not make another political party, the Karnataka High Court opined recently [Pavithra vs Deputy Commissioner and ors]..They should seek recognition or show that they have joined a political party which is recognized by the Election Commission of India (ECI), added the Court..The order passed by Justice N Nagaprasanna stated, "The contention of the petitioners is that 7 out of 9 of them have resigned and have formed a separate splinter group within the political party. This contention, I fail to countenance, for the reason that merely coming out from a political party and forming a splinter group will not make them a political party. They should either form a political party and seek recognition or show that they have joined a political party which is recognized by the Election Commission of India. It is only then the petitioners can claim that they are protected under Section 3A of the Act.".The petitioners moved the Court challenging an order dated September 6, 2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner disqualifying the petitioners from the membership of the City Municipal Council, Kollegal [CMC]. .The petitioners, who were members of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), were asked to compulsorily attend the election to the offices of President and Vice-President of the CMC and to vote in favour of the mandate of the whip.However, when the elections were held, the petitioners voted in favour of one Gangamma, a rebel BSP national party candidate who consequently secured 17 votes and won the election. .Owing to the conduct of the petitioners, a complaint was filed by the contestant to the office of President from the BSP party seeking disqualification of the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and disqualified the petitioners from the membership of the Council on the ground that they had violated the direction (whip) and had defected from the party. It is this order of the Deputy Commissioner that was called into question before the High Court. .The petitioners contended that the whip was without authority of law and that it was never served upon the petitioners. They also sought protection under Section 3A (Disqualification on the ground of defection not to apply in case of split) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (Act). .On the other side, it was contended that the petitioners have acted against the interest of the party and have defected, subsequently forming a splinter group. The government pleader appearing for the Deputy Commissioner submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not call for any interference as the petitioners had admittedly resigned from the primary membership of the party..The Court, after going through the factual matrix and submissions of parties, proceeded to go through various provisions of the Act. Regarding the protection sought under Section 3A of the Act, the Court, after relying on Supreme Court decisions, observed that the "act of resignation is the knocking off the binding knot which holds one to the office and the obligation and privileges that go with it."The petitioners having resigned, cannot now contend that they are entitled to protection under the Act insofar as the procedure to be followed for disqualification, said the Court. "Section 3A of the Act protects disqualification of a Member in case of a split in the political party. This protection to the petitioners is not available and the contention is unacceptable.".Additionally, the Court noted that even after eight months of their resignation, the petitioners have not produced even a tither of evidence to show that their splinter group is a political party recognised by the Election Commission of India. .Therefore, while refusing to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner's order, the Court opined, "Acting against the political party to which they belong is always a peril to those members of the political party when acted as such. Contentions of the kind advanced, in the case at hand, will not show any light in the end of the tunnel to the petitioners as on their sheer conduct they are disentitled to consideration of any such contentions with regard to the procedural aberrations, if any, at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner in the order impugned.".Senior Advocate Jayakumar S Patil appeared for the petitioners, while Senior Advocate AS Ponnanna appearing for the second respondent. High Court Government Pleader KR Nithyananda appeared for the Deputy Commissioner..[Read Judgment here]