Karnataka HC Quashes Two Panchayat Members’ Disqualification After Whip Was Served Just 3 Days Before Vote, Breaching 5-Day Guideline

The petitioners were elected as members of Rattihalli Pattana Panchayat on 17 August 2025.

Petitioner No. 1 contested under the Congress symbol; petitioner No. 2 contested independently.

An election for Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha was scheduled for 30 September 2025. A whip was issued to the petitioners on 27 September 2025.

Following a complaint by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner disqualified them under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987.

The petitioners challenged that order, relying on the requirement that a whip be communicated at least five days before the election. The Court had stayed the disqualification order pending the petition.

The Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 governs disqualification for defection; Section 9 empowers the State to frame rules under the Act.

In the absence of such rules, Smt. Savita v. District President, BJP, W.P. No. 104407/2021 (16 December 2022), following Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, prescribed interim procedures for communicating party directions: the direction must be submitted to the authority competent to convene the meeting at least five days beforehand, and that authority must communicate it to the elected members; if the direction is not communicated to that authority, disqualification proceedings cannot be initiated.

The Court also referred to Suresh v. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 105239/2021 (21 April 2022), which had urged the State to frame rules under the Act.

The Court treated the timing of the whip as decisive.

The documents showed that it was issued on 27 September 2025 for an election scheduled on 30 September 2025, falling short of the five-day period required by the Savita guidelines.

The Deputy Commissioner had not considered or applied those guidelines when disqualifying the petitioners, so the disqualification order could not be sustained.

The Court noted that rules under the 1987 Act remained unframed and reiterated the need for the State to address that omission.

It directed that the petitioners continue as members, consistently with the interim order; it did not expressly grant the requested relief restoring them as President and Vice-President.

The Registry was directed to send the order to the Chief Secretary, who was to take steps to frame rules under Section 9 of the 1987 Act within six months of communication and file a compliance report after that period.