Supreme Court seeks reply from Karnataka State Election Commission on plea by disqualified Anekal Municipal Council members

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Karnataka State Election Commission in a plea filed by three former councillors challenging their disqualification on grounds of not furnishing an account of their poll expenses [K Srinivas and ors vs Karnataka State Election Comission and ors]..A bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose issued notice in the petition and posted the matter for further consideration on June 15. The plea has challenged an order of Karnataka High Court that had upheld the State Election Commission's (SEC) decision to disqualify K Srinivas, S Lalitha and Hemalatha CK for three years in November 15, 2021. The State's poll body in its order had disqualified a total of twelve councillors for not furnishing details of their election expenses and further, not responding to notices seeking explanations for the delay/ non-compliance with the same.This was even as the area's Tehsildar, in a July 2020 letter to the Bengaluru Urban Deputy Commissioner, acknowledged receiving the poll expense accounts of the petitioners after the show-cause notice was issued in January 2020. The petitioners in February this year sent representations to the present respondents seeking withdrawal of the disqualification. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted as to why the poll expense accounts and the petitioners' reply to the show-cause notices had not reached the SEC.The officials responsible for the same were suspended. The petitioners then moved the Karnataka High Court in February this year and around that time the SEC responded to them saying the disqualification cannot be withdrawn. The High Court on April 18 dismissed the three councillors' plea stating that since no prejudice was caused to them, the principles of natural justice cannot be evoked in the matter. Ten days after the said order, the poll body notified by-polls for the now vacant seats, the operation of which was initially stayed by a Division Bench of the High Court on May 5. On May 30, this plea was dismissed. As on the date of filing the present plea before the Supreme Court, however, the High Court's dismissal order of May 30 was not yet uploaded on its official website. The SEC still re-notified the election process and schedule for the vacant seats, against which the present petitioners again made a representation to the poll body. .The petitioners before the top court have challenged the disqualification on the ground that they were not given an opportunity to respond and present their case to the SEC.This was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the resonableness test provided under Article 14, particularly as elected representatives are involved, it was contended.It was further submitted that the punishment was disproportionate since the show-cause notices issued in respect of the disqualification grounds were substantially complied with by the petitioners by explainig the reasons for the delay.Further, the question of whether statutory provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act mandate or only direct disqualification was raised. The plea said that the action of the poll body was arbitrary, unlawful, and caused grave prejudice in resulting in their 'unceremonius' removal from the council.The petitioner, thus, sought an interim stay on the orders of the High Court and the disqualification order passed by the Karnataka State Election Commission..The plea was filed by advocate Parmatma Singh, and drawn by advocates Mayank Jain and Madhur Jain.Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija represented the petitioners. .[Read Order]