Defection or a change in political affiliation after being elected is a “unilateral withdrawal from the bond executed with the people by the elected representative,” the court stated while hearing a petition for anticipatory bail for five accused in the councillor Kala Raju abduction case. The court granted the request.
Published Jan 31, 2025 | 9:30 PM ⚊ Updated Jan 31, 2025 | 9:30 PM
Kala Raju had earlier alleged that she was kidnapped and attacked by members of the CPI(M) ahead of the no-confidence motion in the municipality.
Granting anticipatory bail to five accused in the alleged abduction and attack on Koothattukulam municipal councillor Kala Raju, the Kerala High Court, on Thursday, 30 January made significant observations on democratic principles, emphasising that elected representatives are bound by the will of the people who elected them.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan asserted that if a representative wishes to change political allegiance, he or she should first resign and seek a fresh mandate rather than unilaterally breaking the trust of voters.
“If the elected representative wants to change his policy or political affiliation, he has to resign and face the mandate of the people again. That is the moral side of democracy. Otherwise, it will be a unilateral withdrawal from the bond executed with the people by the elected representative,” the court said, according to Livelaw.
“It will be an insult to the will of the people. But the people can show their will to such a representative in the next election either by supporting him or by defeating him. That is the beauty of democracy.”
The court acknowledged that political defection could cause embarrassment to party workers but underscored that retaliation should not lead to violence, vandalism, or lawlessness.
Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked that democracy should function through the power of the ballot rather than weapons or street conflict.
“In a democratic setup, the proper way to challenge an elected representative is through elections, not through violence. Both sides in this case have taken the law into their own hands instead of addressing the issue democratically,” the court observed.
On 18 January, 2025, Kala Raju, who was elected as a CPI(M) councillor but later shifted her allegiance to the United Democratic Front, alleged that she was kidnapped and attacked by members of the CPI(M) ahead of the no-confidence motion in the municipality.
She held a press conference in which she asserted that the incident occurred with the full knowledge of the CPI(M) area secretary, and was a ruse to prevent her from casting her vote in the no-confidence motion moved by the UDF against the governing committee in the municipality led by Vijaya Sivan of the CPI(M).
Raju said Arun Ashokan of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), the student wing of the CPI(M), forced her into a vehicle and took her to the area committee office where party workers attempted to persuade her not to cast her vote in favour of the no-confidence motion.
On a complaint from the councillor’s children, police registered a case against 45 people, including the CPI(M) area secretary, municipality chairperson and vice-chairman.
A second FIR was lodged on a complaint from the Left Democratic Front against five Congress workers, for allegedly assaulting LDF members and rioting outside the municipality office.
The CPI(M) has rejected the allegations that its members abducted and assaulted the councillor.
The High Court directed the accused to appear before the investigating officer within two weeks for interrogation. If the police decided to arrest them, they would be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 each with two solvent sureties.
The court also imposed the following restrictions:
The court clarified that any violation of these conditions would allow the prosecution to seek bail cancellation before the jurisdictional court.
(Edited by Rosamma Thomas with inputs from Dileep V Kumar)
