- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 25412 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANDREGOWDA M. S/O LATE MYLAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PRESIDENT HASSAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND MAYOR THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF HASSAN (NOW DISQUALIFIED) HASSAN-573 201. R/AT DOOR NO.51421/1, 4TH CROSS RAVINDRA NAGARA, HASSAN-573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIKARA P.K., AND SRI. SRUJAN B.RAJ, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. S.DYAVEGOWDA S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS TALUK PRESIDENT JD(S) POLITICAL PARTY HASSAN DISTRICT RESIDING AT ROOM NO.6 VOKKALIGARA HOSTEL BUILDING B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573 201. 2. SRI. K.S.LINGESH S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA AGE NOT KNOWN, MAJOR DISTRICT PRESIDENT Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 JD(S) POLITICAL PARTY HASSAN DISTRICT R/AT KARIKATTEHALLI CHATCHATTIHALLI POST HALEBEEDU HOBLI BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER HASSAN METROPOLITAN CORPORATION HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. 5. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570 001. 6. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; SRI. SYED AMEER, ADVOCAET FOR R1; SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN J.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN THE CASE BEARING NO.RCM- ELN/01/2025 DISQUALIFYING THE PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF COUNCILOR OF HASSAN METROPOLITAN CORPORATION BY ALLOWING THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner was the President of Hassan City Municipal Council, which is now upgraded to a Corporation. He was elected on Janata Dal (Secular) ticket. However, a 'No Confidence Motion' was sought to be moved against the petitioner by his own party Councilors and a meeting of no confidence was scheduled on 28.04.2025. The power of issuing the Whip to the Councilors of Janata Dal (Secular) (for short 'JDS') to vote against the petitioner in the no confidence meeting has been issued by the President of JDS to respondent No.2. The same is dated 16.04.2025. Pursuant to the same, a Whip has been issued by respondent No.2 to all the Councillors including the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 2. However, the petitioner disputes delegation of the authorization made by the President of JDS in favour of respondent No.2 and also service of the whip on him. 3. The petitioner abstained from casting his vote in the no confidence motion. Subsequently, the no confidence motion against the petitioner has failed. 4. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 moved for disqualification of the petitioner from the post of Councillor on the ground that the action of the petitioner in abstaining himself from voting in favour of the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner violates Section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 ('the Act' for short). Due enquiry was conducted by respondent No.5 and thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed disqualifying the petitioner from the post of Councillor. The same is challenged herein. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 5. The case of the petitioner is that firstly, there was no proper authorization of delegation by the President of JDS in favour of respondent No.2 to issue the whip to the Councillors of JDS. Secondly, there was no whip served on him. Thirdly, even presuming there was delegation and whip was issued on the petitioner, he cannot be compelled to vote against himself. It is further submitted that Section 3(1)(b) of the Act contemplates that a person can be disqualified only if he defects from one party to another or if he votes against a resolution which is a major policy decision of the political party, and it does not cover a situation of intra party disciplinary matters as in the instant case. It is submitted that law provides for freedom of speech and expression on behalf of the elected representatives and they are expected not to be parrots of the party high command, but true representatives of their electorate and has to cater to their interest. 6. Whether there has been a proper delegation of power to issue the whip from the President of JDS to respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 No.2 in the instant case, and whether the same has been issued on the petitioner or not is a question of fact, and this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the same can be determined by the documents produced cannot decide the same. The petitioner in the instant case, is disputing the signature of the party president of JDS. Respondent No.5 while appreciating the evidence has come to the conclusion that there has been proper issuance of the whip. It is also noticed that in the proceedings before respondent no. 5, only the evidence is let in by respondent No.1 herein. 7. Though the order sheet maintained by respondent no.5 does not explicitly say that the matter was posted for cross examination or a date was given for the petitioner to lead his evidence, the fact remains the order sheet indeed records affidavit evidence being filed by respondent No.1 herein and thereafter the matter being posted for arguments. It is noticed that the petitioner herein was also represented by a Counsel and no objections have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 been raised by him in this regard. With regard to service of the whip, the order sheet records that the whip was sought to be served on the petitioner herein through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due which has returned unclaimed. 8. This Court is not examining the matter as an Appellate Authority. On facts, respondent No.5 has come to the conclusion that there has been a valid delegation of power by the President of JDS in favour of respondent No.2 for issuance of a whip, and a whip has been duly served on the petitioner herein. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any error in the said conclusion. 9. The next question that arises for consideration is, can a whip be issued to the petitioner compelling him to vote against his own interest and whether a decision of the political party regarding who has to be a President or not can be considered a major policy decision of the party - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 which attracts disqualification under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu and Others reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 while examining similar provisions of the X Schedule of the Constitution of India has held in paragraphs 121, 122, 123 as under: "121. We may now notice one other contention as to the construction of the expression ‘any direction’ occurring in Paragraph 2(1)(b). It is argued that if the expression really attracts within its sweep every direction or whip of any kind whatsoever it might be unduly restrictive of the freedom of speech and the right of dissent and that, therefore, should be given a meaning limited to the objects and purposes of the Tenth Schedule. Learned counsel relied upon and commended to us the view taken by the minority in the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Parkash Singh Badal v. Union of India [AIR 1987 P&H 263] where such a restricted sense was approved. Tewatia, J. said: (AIR pp. 313-14, paras 157 and 158) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 “If the expression: ‘any direction’ is to be literally construed then it would make the people's representative a wholly political party's representative, which decidedly he is not. The Member would virtually lose his identity and would become a rubber stamp in the hands of his political party. Such interpretation of this provision would cost it, its constitutionality, for in that sense it would become destructive of democracy/Parliamentary democracy, which is the basic feature of the Constitution. Where giving of narrow meaning and reading down of the provision can save it from the vice of unconstitutionality the Court should read it down particularly when it brings the provision in line with the avowed legislative intent …. … [T]he purpose of enacting paragraph 2 could be no other than to insure stability of the democratic system, which in the context of Cabinet/Parliamentary form of government on the one hand means that a political party or a coalition of political parties which has been voted to power, is entitled to govern till the next election, and on the other, that opposition has a right to censure the functioning of the government and even overthrow it by voting it out of power if it had lost the confidence of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 people, then voting or abstaining from voting by a Member contrary to any direction issued by his party would by necessary implication envisage voting or abstaining from voting in regard to a motion or proposal, which if failed, as a result of lack of requisite support in the House, would result in voting the government out of power, which consequence necessarily follows due to well established constitutional convention only when either a motion of no confidence is passed by the House or it approves a cut-motion in budgetary grants. Former because of the implications of Article 75(3) of the Constitution and latter because no government can function without money and when Parliament declines to sanction money, then it amounts to an expression of lack of confidence in the government. When so interpreted the clause (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 2 would leave the Members free to vote according to their views in the House in regard to any other matter that comes up before it.” The reasoning of the learned Judge that a wider meaning of the words “any direction” would ‘cost it its constitutionality’ does not commend to us. But we approve the conclusion that these words require to be construed harmoniously with the other - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 provisions and appropriately confined to the objects and purposes of the Tenth Schedule. Those objects and purposes define and limit the contours of its meaning. The assignment of a limited meaning is not to read it down to promote its constitutionality but because such a construction is a harmonious construction in the context. There is no justification to give the words the wider meaning. 122. While construing Paragraph 2(1)(b) it cannot be ignored that under the Constitution Members of Parliament as well as of the State legislature enjoy freedom of speech in the House though this freedom is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the Procedure of the House [Article 105(1) and Article 194(1)]. The disqualification imposed by Paragraph 2(1)(b) must be so construed as not to unduly impinge on the said freedom of speech of a Member. This would be possible if Paragraph 2(1)(b) is confined in its scope by keeping in view the object underlying the amendments contained in the Tenth Schedule, namely, to curb the evil or mischief of political defections motivated by the lure of office or other similar considerations. The said object would be achieved if the disqualification incurred on the ground of voting or abstaining from voting by a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 member is confined to cases where a change of government is likely to be brought about or is prevented, as the case may be, as a result of such voting or abstinence or when such voting or abstinence is on a matter which was a major policy and programme on which the political party to which the Member belongs went to the polls. For this purpose the direction given by the political party to a Member belonging to it, the violation of which may entail disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(b), would have to be limited to a vote on motion of confidence or no confidence in the government or where the motion under consideration relates to a matter which was an integral policy and programme of the political party on the basis of which it approached the electorate. The voting or abstinence from voting by a Member against the direction by the political party on such a motion would amount to disapproval of the programme on the basis of which he went before the electorate and got himself elected and such voting or abstinence would amount to a breach of the trust reposed in him by the electorate. 123. Keeping in view the consequences of the disqualification i.e., termination of the membership of a House; it would be appropriate that the direction or whip which results in such - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(b) is so worded as to clearly indicate that voting or abstaining from voting contrary to the said direction would result in incurring the disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule so that the member concerned has fore-knowledge of the consequences flowing from his conduct in voting or abstaining from voting contrary to such a direction." 11. Section 3 of the Act reads as under: "3. Disqualification on the ground of defection.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 3A, 3B and 4, a councillor or a member, belonging to any political party, shall be disqualified for being such councillor or member,- (a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party ; or (b) if he votes or abstains from voting in, or intentionally remains absent from any meeting of the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Town Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat, contrary to any direction Issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf without obtaining the prior permission of such party, person or authority and such voting, abstention or absence - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of voting or such abstention or absence; Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- section,- (a) a person elected as a councillor, or as the case may be, a member, shall be deemed to belong to the political party, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as such councillor or member; (b) a person elected as a councillor or as the case may be, a member, otherwise than as a candidate set up by a political party shall be deemed to belong to the political party of which he becomes a member before the expiry of six months from the date of commencement of his term of office, or in the case of a councillor or member whose term of office has commenced on or before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) (Amendment) Act, 1995 within six months from such date. (2) An elected councillor, or as the case may be, a member, who has been elected as such, otherwise than as a candidate set up by a political party shall be disqualified for being a councillor or, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 as the case may be a member if he joins a political party after expiry of six months from the date of commencement of his term of office, or in the case of a councillor or member whose term of office has commenced on or before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) (Amendment) Act, 1995, after expiry of six months from such date. (3) x x x (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, a person who on the commencement of this Act, is a councillor shall,- (a) where he was a member of a political party immediately before such commencement, be deemed for purposes of sub-section (1) to have been elected as a councillor as a candidate set up by such political party ; (b) in any other case, be deemed to be an elected councilor who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any political party for the purpose of sub-section (2). " - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 12. While interpreting a statute, unless there is any ambiguity, the literal meaning of assailed from the statute has to be followed by the Court. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner got elected as a Councillor on a JDS ticket. Subsequently, as per the decision taken by the party, he was chosen as the President of the Hassan City Municipal Council. He is required to function in line to implement the policy decision of the party in accordance with law. For whatever reason, the party is not happy with his functioning as a President and has taken a decision to have it replaced. Under the circumstances, it is to be construed that, in pursuance of policy and programs of JDS party, a decision has been taken to have the petitioner replaced. Hence, a whip has been issued in this regard. Once a valid whip is issued, the petitioner is bound to follow the same, failing which, he can be disqualified as per Section 3 of the Act. The fact that the petitioner is required to vote against his own interest is legally inconsequential. In my opinion, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37608 WP No. 25412 of 2025 disqualification of the petitioner is in accordance with provisions of Section 3 of the Act and as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment mentioned hereinabove. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any merit in the case and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.2/2025 for impleading stands dismissed. I.A.No.1/2025 for early hearing stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE HKH/PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23