Why local body candidates should spell out their political front in future

Kochi: Representative elections at various levels of the administration in a vibrant democracy as in India are highly competitive. In elections at the lowest level the identity of the candidate matters more than one's political affiliation, but the latter too proves crucial when there is no clear majority to form the local self-government, whether it be at the gram panchayat or town municipality. Considering such risks, the Kerala High Court has called for putting in place a mechanism by which the candidates could submit a statement declaring the name of the political front which had chosen them to contest.

The High Court observed that the state election commission should take steps to implement such a system.

The local units of political parties taking positions which are divergent to their district and state leadership could result in legal tangles, the court pointed out.

The court noted that there was no clarity in the law which ensures categorisation of electoral fronts especially at the local level.

The court directive came on the verdict given by Justice A Mohamamd Musthaq quashing the disqualification of K Sivasdasan under the provision of the anti-defection law. He had won from a ward of the Koduvally Municipality with UDF support even though he was not the Congress’s official candidate in the 2015 local body poll.

Sivadasan had filed the nomination as a Congress candidate but it was one C M Gopalan who contested as the official nominee of the district Congress on the party symbol. However, Sivadasn emerged victorious with the support of other constituents in the UDF municipal committee.

In the statement given under the prescribed rules, Sivadasan had mentioned that he was an independent candidate backed by the UDF. The state election commission, however, disqualified him following a complaint filed by LDF member E C Mohammad alleging violation of the anti-defection law. This was challenged by the petitioner in the court.

The court pointed out that the problem had cropped up because there was no provision in the law by which the opinion of the front could be ascertained.