SC considers plea by councillors of Anekal town against disqualification

The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to consider on June 9 a plea by K Srinivas and two other members of Anekal Town Municipal Council against their disqualification for their failure to submit election expenses.

Senior advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija, representing the petitioners, submitted before a bench of Justices M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose that the High Court had rejected their plea against the disqualification in violation of the top court's rulings in the case of Ashok Chawan and others.

The bench, however, asked the counsel to place on record the order passed by the division bench of the High Court and put the matter for hearing on Thursday.

The Karnataka High Court had rejected their plea against the order passed by the State Election Commission on November 15, 2021, disqualifying them as councillors of their respective wards.

Srinivas, S Lalitha and Hemalatha C K were elected to the municipal body on May 30, 2019.

The HC had on April 18, 2022, rejected their contention that they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order of disqualification in violation of the principle of natural justice.

It had said principles of natural justice can't be invoked as mindless priests ritualistically chanting the mantra as some prejudice caused because of the violations has to be demonstrated. It also pointed out that regulating election expenditure is the first step toward combating corruption.

Srinivas, Lalitha and Hemalatha C K, subsequently filed a writ appeal before a division bench saying the single bench's order is arbitrary and erroneous. They also challenged the issuance of a fresh notification on April 28.

The division bench, however, too dismissed their plea, saying they were bound to submit the list of election expenses before the State Election Commission within 30 days from the date of declaration of the election. Admittedly, the appellants have failed to do so and they have not shown any good reasons or justification for failure to do so. It further noted the process for a fresh election has been set into motion, so their appeal can't be entertained.