In a landmark observation, the Kerala High Court emphasized that elected representatives who wish to change their political affiliation must first resign and seek a fresh mandate from the people. The court made this remark while granting bail to five accused in a politically charged assault case involving councillors of the Koothattukulam Nagara Sabha. The case, registered as Crime No. 64/2025 at the Koothattukulam Police Station, highlights the growing tensions between political factions in Kerala.
Background of the Case:
The incident occurred on January 18, 2025, during a no-confidence motion moved by the United Democratic Front (UDF) against the Left Democratic Front (LDF)-led Nagara Sabha. The LDF held a slim majority of 13 seats, while the UDF had 12, with one independent councillor supporting the UDF. The political balance was disrupted when an LDF councillor, Kala Raju, decided to support the UDF’s no-confidence motion.
Allegedly, LDF supporters, including the petitioners—K.R. Jayakumar, P.C. Jose, Prince Paul John, Reji John, and Boban Varghese—abducted Kala Raju to prevent her from voting in favor of the motion. This led to the registration of Crime No. 61/2025 based on a complaint filed by Kala Raju’s son. Subsequently, an LDF councillor who was assaulted during the incident filed a complaint, resulting in Crime No. 64/2025 against the petitioners. They were charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including non-bailable offences.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations:
The petitioners sought bail, arguing that the charges against them were politically motivated and that the non-bailable offences under Sections 74 and 76 of the BNS were not applicable. The prosecution, however, opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, presiding over the case, made several significant observations about the moral and ethical responsibilities of elected representatives in a democracy. The court stated:
“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. It will be an insult to the will of the people.”
The court further emphasized that democracy thrives on the principle of representation, and any deviation from the mandate given by the people must be addressed through democratic means, not violence. Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked:
“The proper manner by which a person is to be defeated in a democratic set-up is through the ballot papers and not by using weapons or by committing vandalism.”
Court’s Decision:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the court granted bail to the petitioners, citing the well-established principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” The court imposed stringent conditions, including:
1. The petitioners must appear before the investigating officer for interrogation within two weeks.
2. They must execute a bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two solvent sureties.
3. They are prohibited from leaving India without the court’s permission.
4. They must not influence witnesses or commit similar offences while on bail.
The court also noted that if any conditions are violated, the prosecution or the victim can seek cancellation of the bail.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 1179 of 2025
– Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
– Petitioners’ Lawyers: V. John Sebastian Ralph, Ralph Reti John, Vishnu Chandran, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Geethu T.A., Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar
– Respondent: State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor Sri Noushad KA.
