JUDGMENT : In all these Writ Petitions the common order dated 13.10.2017 of the Election Commission in O.P.No.79 of 2015, O.P.No.80 of 2015 and O.P.No.81 of 2015 are impugned. These matters pertain to an election to the Mallappuzhahassery Grama Panchayath, where, to the 13 seats to which election was held in November 2015, the United Democratic Front (UDF) won five seats, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) four seats, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) three seats and an Independent one seat. The components of the UDF, which won the five seats, comprised of the Congress, which won three seats, Janada Dal (U) one seat and Kerala Congress one seat. Similarly, under the LDF, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M)) won three seats and the Communist Party of India (CPI) one seat. The elected members, then proceeded to hold the election to the post of President on 19.11.2015. It is not in dispute that there was no whip issued either by the UDF or by the JD(U). The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017 is a person, who contested as a member of the JD(U), which formed part of the UDF coalition that was formed for the purposes of contesting the election. It is stated that, while the UDF coalition fielded the 2nd respondent, who was a Congress candidate, as the candidate for the post of President, the petitioner also contested to the post of President and was subsequently elected based on the votes garnered in the election from the LDF Councillors, who voted in favour of the petitioner. One Congress candidate abstained from the election meeting and the Kerala Congress candidate voted in favour of the petitioner. As already noted, consequent to the petitioner being elected as a President, the election of the President was challenged by the 2nd respondent, who also sought disqualification of the petitioner along with the Congress Councillor who abstained from voting, as also the Kerala Congress candidate who voted in favour of the petitioner. The election petitions came to be numbered as O.P.No.79 of 2015, O.P.No.80 of 2015 and O.P.No.81 of 2015 respectively. Through a common order dated 13.10.2017, the Election Commission found with regard to the Congress Councillor (O.P.No.81 of 2015) that the said person had not complied with the whip issued by his party and had not attended the election meeting. The election petitions came to be numbered as O.P.No.79 of 2015, O.P.No.80 of 2015 and O.P.No.81 of 2015 respectively. Through a common order dated 13.10.2017, the Election Commission found with regard to the Congress Councillor (O.P.No.81 of 2015) that the said person had not complied with the whip issued by his party and had not attended the election meeting. The justification given by the said person, that he was prevented from attending the Election Meeting on account of an injury sustained by him, was disbelieved based on the evidence adduced, and the said person was held disqualified as a Councillor. In W.P.(C).No.33330 of 2017, the said decision of the Election Commission is impugned by the Congress candidate concerned, who is the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. As regards the Kerala Congress Councillor, the Election Commission found, in the context of O.P.No.80 of 2015, that the said person had violated the directions in a whip issued by the party, and although the councillor had set up a defence that she had received oral directions to the effect that she was to vote for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017, the said version was not believed, based on the evidence adduced before the Election Commission. The said Councillor was also, therefore, disqualified and the order of disqualification is impugned in W.P.(C).No.33299 of 2017 filed by the said person. As regards the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017, the Election Commission found in the context of O.P.No.79 of 2015 that, although the JD(U) party had not issued any whip or direction that was disobeyed by the petitioner, his contesting the election for the post of President, against an understanding of the coalition, of which his party was an integral part, and further, his emerging successful in the election on the basis of a sponsorship by the opposite party, effectively meant that he had voluntarily given up the membership of his party, and therefore, stood disqualified in terms of S.3(1)(a) of the Kerala Local Authorities Prohibitions of Defection Act, 1999. As noted above, it is this order of the Election Commission that is impugned in W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017. 2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. V.V. Asokan duly assisted by Sri. P. Rahul, appearing for the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, the learned Senior counsel Sri. As noted above, it is this order of the Election Commission that is impugned in W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017. 2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. V.V. Asokan duly assisted by Sri. P. Rahul, appearing for the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, the learned Senior counsel Sri. K.Ramakumar duly assisted by Sri.P.Haridas, for the party respondents in all these Writ Petitions, and also Sri. Murali Purushothaman, the learned Standing counsel for the Election Commission in all these Writ Petitions. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that in respect of W.P.(C).No.33330 of 2017 and W.P.(C).No.33299 of 2017, the said Writ Petitions can be disposed first since the issue therein arises in a narrow compass and I find that there is no material that is produced in those Writ Petitions, which is sufficient to dislodge the findings of the Election Commission. In particular, in W.P. (C).No.33330 of 2017, the version of the petitioner therein that he was prevented from attending the election meeting on account of an illness was disbelieved by the Election Commission, on the finding that, the illness itself was not so grave as necessitated an absence from the election meeting. The conduct of the petitioner therein in abstaining from the election meeting, where he was expected to vote for a candidate of his party, was viewed as sufficient for the purposes of disqualifying him, on the ground that, he had acted contrary to the interest of the party which had fielded him for election to the seats in the Panchayat. As regards W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017, I find that the finding therein is essentially that, there was in fact a whip that was issued by the political party of which the petitioner therein was a member, and the evidence adduced suggested that the petitioner therein 1050 had acted contrary to the whip issued by the political party. The contention of the petitioner therein that she had also received a contrary instruction, from the person who had signed the whip on behalf of the political party, was also disbelieved on the basis of the evidence adduced before the election commission. The contention of the petitioner therein that she had also received a contrary instruction, from the person who had signed the whip on behalf of the political party, was also disbelieved on the basis of the evidence adduced before the election commission. The disqualification of the petitioner therein on the basis of evidence that was tendered before the Election Commission also cannot be interfered with in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for want of any grounds warranting such an interference with such proceedings. 4. As regards W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017, I find that the disqualification of the petitioner therein is primarily on the ground that, he had voluntarily given up membership of his party. It would be apposite in this context to refer to S.3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibitions of Defection) Act which reads as follows: “3. 4. As regards W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017, I find that the disqualification of the petitioner therein is primarily on the ground that, he had voluntarily given up membership of his party. It would be apposite in this context to refer to S.3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibitions of Defection) Act which reads as follows: “3. Disqualification on ground of defection:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994), or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), or in any other law for the time being in force, subject to the other provisions of this Act,- (a) If a member of a local authority belonging to any political party voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party, or if such member, contrary to any direction in writing issued by the political party to which he belongs or by a person or authority authorised by it in this behalf in the manner prescribed, votes or abstain from voting,- (i) in a meeting of a Municipality, in an election of its Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of a Standing Committee; or (ii) in a meeting of Panchayat, in an election of its President, Vice President, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of the Standing Committee; or in an voting on a no-confidence motion against any one of them except a member of a Standing Committee; (b) If an independent member belonging to any coalition withdraws from such coalition or joins any political party or any other coalition, or if such a member, contrary to any direction in writing issued by person or authorities authorised by the coalition in this behalf in the manner prescribed, votes or abstains from voting;- (i) in a meeting of a Municipality, in an election of its President, Vice President, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of the Standing Committee; or (ii) in a meeting of a Panchayat in an election of its President, Vice President, a member of a Standing Committee or the Chairman of the Standing Committee; or in a voting on a no-confidence motion against any one of them except a member of a Standing Committee; (c) If an independent member not belonging to any coalition, joins any political party or coalition; he shall be disqualified for being a member of that local authority. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section an elected member of a local authority shall be deemed to be a member belonging to the political party, if there is any such party, be which he was set up as a candidate for the election.” 5. It will be seen from a perusal of the afore-quoted Section that a clear distinction is made between a member of a local authority belonging to any political party and an independent member, belonging to any coalition, in the matter of disqualification on the ground of acting contrary to any direction issued by the party or the coalition. While in the case of an independent member belonging to any coalition, a disqualification is attracted if the independent member withdraws from such coalition or joins any political party or any other coalition or if such a member, contrary to any direction in writing issued by a person or authority authorized by the coalition in its behalf in the manner prescribed, votes or abstains from voting or if the independent member, who does not belong to any coalition joins any political party or coalition, a similar disqualification is not attracted under S.3(1)(a) if a member of a political party acts contrary to any direction in writing issued on behalf of a coalition. The statutory Scheme could, therefore, be seen as suggesting that, when a member of a political party, which forms part of a coalition, acts contrary to the interest of the coalition (as against the interest of his/her own political party), a disqualification is not attracted under S.3 of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibitions of Defection) Act. The issue then arises as to whether the conduct of the member of the political party, in acting against the interests of the coalition, of which his political party was an integral component, would tantamount to his voluntarily giving up membership of his political party. It is relevant to note in this connection that four decisions of this Court, namely, Varghese V.V. & Anr. v. Kerala State Election Commission and Anr. ( 2009 (3) KHC 42 ). Surya Prakash & Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm & Ors. ( 2015 KHC 454 ). Chenthamara K. & Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission. Tvm & Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission and Anr. ( 2009 (3) KHC 42 ). Surya Prakash & Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm & Ors. ( 2015 KHC 454 ). Chenthamara K. & Ors. v. Kerala State Election Commission. Tvm & Ors. (2015 KHC 7086) and the unreported judgment dated 08.02.2006 in W.A.No.2351 of 2005, suggest that a person, who is a member of a political party, which in turn is part of a coalition, who acts against the interests of the coalition, or who has won an election with the support of members of a rival coalition would be seen as acting against the interest of his own political party, which has allied itself with a coalition. The factual situation that arose in these cases and the findings of the court in the aforesaid cases are as detailed below: I. In Varghese V.V (supra), the writ petitioners were elected to the Adoor Municipal Council as candidates of the Indian National Congress. In a no-confidence motion moved, by the opposition left parties, the petitioners voted in favour of the same in defiance of the party stand made known to them. In the next election to the post of Deputy Chairman, when the Congress party put up the same candidate, the petitioner stood against him and won the election on the strength of the votes of the left parties. The defeated candidate then filed a complaint against the writ petitioners before the Election Commission. The Election Commission found that by their conduct the petitioners had renounced their membership of the Congress party. Aggrieved by the order of the Election Commission, the writ petitioners approached this Court and the Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. While dismissing the Writ Appeals preferred by the writ petitions challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it was held as follows in paragraph 7 and 8 of the said judgment: “7. The Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 was brought out “to prohibit defection among members of local authorities in the State of Kerala and to provide for disqualification of the defecting members for being members of the local authorities”. S.3 deals with disqualification on the ground of defection. S.3(l)(a) reads as follows:- “3. The Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 was brought out “to prohibit defection among members of local authorities in the State of Kerala and to provide for disqualification of the defecting members for being members of the local authorities”. S.3 deals with disqualification on the ground of defection. S.3(l)(a) reads as follows:- “3. Disqualification on ground of defection:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994), or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), or in any other law for the time being in force, subject to the other provisions of this Act,- (a) if a member of local authority belonging to any political party voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party, or if such member, contrary to any direction in writing issued by the political party to which he belongs or by a person or authority authorized by it in this behalf in the manner prescribed, votes or abstains from voting. The expression ‘defection’ as such is not defined in the Act. Probably the expression does not require a definition since the concept is so plain. But the Legislature has left the disqualification to be decided on the defined conduct of the member. We are concerned with the conduct of voluntarily giving up membership in the political party. It is now settled law that in order to attract the disqualification on the ground of voluntary giving up membership in the political party the elected member need not resign from the party. In Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India ( AIR 1994 SC 1558 ) it was held that voluntarily giving up membership is not synonymous with resignation. Voluntary giving up membership has a wider meaning than resignation as observed by a Division Bench of this court in Shajahan v. Chathannoor Grama Panchayat (2002 (2) KLJ 451). In Ravi S.Naik’s case the Apex Court made it clear that “Even in the absence of a formal resignation from membership an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belongs. In Ravi S.Naik’s case the Apex Court made it clear that “Even in the absence of a formal resignation from membership an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belongs. In Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya ( (2007) 4 SCC 270 ) also the Supreme Court held that it is the conduct of the elected members that is to be looked into while considering whether an elected member has become disqualified on the ground of defection based on voluntary giving up membership in the political party. In G.Viswanathan v. Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly ( (1996) 2 SCC 353 ) the Apex Court held that “the Act of voluntary giving up the membership of the political party may be either express or implied”. In Faisal v. Abdulla Kunhi ( 2008 (3) KLT 534 ) a learned single Judge of this court has taken the view that the expression “voluntarily giving up membership of his political party” is not to be equated with ceasing to be a member of his party by express resignation; it is to be inferred from the conduct of the member. It was also held therein that the relevant date for deciding the question of disqualification is the date on which the member voluntarily gives up the membership. 8. However, placing heavy reliance on another Single Bench decision in Naseera Beevi v. State Election Commission ( 2004 (1) KLT 1108 ), the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would contend that every objectionable conduct does not automatically lead to the inference of voluntarily leaving the political party. In the above case a few members of a political party decided to form a separate group in the “parliamentary party” of that political party and that was informed to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. It was in that context the learned single Judge took the view that “there is a distinction between membership in the parliamentary party and the membership in the political party. What has been made objectionable under law is the voluntary leaving of the membership in the political party. Leaving the parliamentary party may be a circumstance, which may indicate that the incumbent has left the political party”. What has been made objectionable under law is the voluntary leaving of the membership in the political party. Leaving the parliamentary party may be a circumstance, which may indicate that the incumbent has left the political party”. It is to be noted that the letter of the group was dated 8.1.2003 and the No Confidence Motion was on 13.1.2003. The members who had decided to sit as a separate block had voted in favour of the no confidence motion moved by the rival political parties and thereafter those members had been removed from tile primary membership of the political party on 18.1.2003. The petitions for disqualification was filed on 24.1.2003 before the State Election Commission. A subsequent election to the posts of President and Vice President of the Panchayat was held on 7.2.2003, wherein the aforementioned members were elected as the President and the Vice President with the support of the rival political parties. It appears the learned single Judge had omitted to take note of the fact that the conduct of the revolting members was not the letter given to the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat to form a separate block; those members had in fact supported the no confidence motion moved by the rival political parties. Thus the inevitably inferential conduct was the shifting of loyalty. Loyalty to the party is the norm. To vote against the party is disloyalty. It was this principle as stated in Griffith and Ryle on Parliamentary Functions, Practice and Procedure which was taken note of by the Supreme Court in the celebrated decision in Kohoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992 Supp.(2) SCC 651). The Apex Court held that “any freedom of its members to vote as they please independently of the political parry’s declared policies will not only embarrass its public image and popularity but also undermine public confidence in it which, in the ultimate analysis, is its source of sustenance - nay, indeed, its very survival.” Referring to the object behind the 10th Schedule to the Constitution of India dealing with disqualification on the ground of defection, it was held therein that, “the provision is to curb the evil of political defection motivated by lure of office or other similar considerations which endanger the foundations of our democracy. The only remedy would be to disqualify the member...” The Father of our Nation had foreseen the possibility of such cancerous and endangering tendencies in the practice of democracy and hence only the Mahatma said that politics without principle is a vice. No doubt politics is an art. But the beauty of the art is lost when no value is attached to the art. It is to check erosion of the values in democracy the 10th Schedule to the Constitution of India and the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 were brought into force. Looking from that angle we find it difficult to agree with the dictum in Naseera Beevi’s case. Not only that, there is no party as ‘parliamentary party’. That expression only denotes the wing of the elected members of the political party. Therefore, if a member or a group of the elected members of the political party takes a different stand from that of the political party as such, and acts against the policies of the political party in which they are members, it is nothing but disloyalty. The moment one becomes disloyal by his conduct to the political party, the inevitable inference is that he has voluntarily given up his membership. In Naseera Beevi’s case the rebel group in the parliamentary wing of the political party concerned had not only formed a separate group, but they had voted in favour of the no confidence motion moved by the rival political party. Thus, by their conduct of being disloyal to the political party in which they were members and by voting as they pleased independent of the political party’s declared policy, they had incurred the disqualification. In view of both factual and legal position as above, the dictum laid in Naseera Beevi’s case that leaving the parliamentary party and exercising the right to vote according to the choice of the elected member would not attract the disqualification on the ground of voluntarily giving up membership in the political party is not good law. Hence the same is overruled. We also take note of the fact that the judgment of the single Judge in Naseera Beevi’s case had been set aside by the Division Bench by judgment dated 13.7.2005 in WA. No. 1127/2004, though on a different ground.” ii. Hence the same is overruled. We also take note of the fact that the judgment of the single Judge in Naseera Beevi’s case had been set aside by the Division Bench by judgment dated 13.7.2005 in WA. No. 1127/2004, though on a different ground.” ii. In Surya Prakash case (supra), the writ petitioners and the 2nd respondent were elected candidates of Varkala Municipality in the general election held in 2010. They were candidates of the Indian National Congress party (INC). Out of 33 seats, INC secured 17 seats and Kerala Congress (M), another constituent of the (UDF) secured one seat. After the election, the 1st petitioner was elected as a Chairman. It was noted that the understanding was that he would resign after one year and another person would be elected as Chairman. The 1st petitioner, however, did not resign, and therefore, at the instance of the District Congress Committee (DCC) a no-confidence motion was moved and he was removed from the position of Chairman. Since the said petitioner along with two others did not attend the meeting. They were suspended from the Congress party. Subsequently, however, the DCC decided to restore his status as member of INC. A decision was thereafter taken by the District Congress Committee to elect a new Chairman and one Sri. A.A. Rouf was put up as the candidate. The election was scheduled on 22.04.2014 and a whip was sent by registered post and by way of affixture to the writ petitioners. However, the 1st petitioner contested against the official candidate by disobeying the whip issued by the DCC President and with the help of LDF Councillors, he became the Chairman. In the Original Petition filed before the Election Commission seeking a disqualification of the 1st petitioner, the Election Commission found the 1st petitioner being disqualified since he had acted contrary to the interest of the political party In the Writ Petition filed against the said order of the Election Commission, an interim application for suspension of the order of the Election Commission was dismissed by a Single Judge and the appeal before the Division Bench was against the interim order of the learned Single Judge declining to suspend the operation of the order of disqualification. Taking note of the conduct of the 1st petitioner in contesting against the official candidate of the Congress party while being a member of the same political party and obtaining the support of LDF members, to emerge victorious in the election that followed, it was found that the action of the petitioner could only be termed as an act of disloyalty to the political party, and hence, the finding of the Commission that he had voluntarily given up the membership of his party was upheld. iii. In Chenthamara’s case (supra), while dealing with a factual situation where the petitioners, who were elected members of the Socialist Janatha (Democratic) party ((SJ(D) in Chittoor Block under the UDF coalition opposed a no-confidence motion that was moved by the party members against the President of the Block Panchayat and defeated the said motion with the support of LDF Members, who were of the rival coalition, it was held that the action of the petitioners was nothing but an act of disloyalty and the moment the petitioners became disloyal to the political party by their conduct in defeating the no-confidence motion with the support of the opposite faction namely the LDF, the inevitable inference is that they have voluntarily given up their membership in the SJ (D) party. iv. In the unreported judgment dated 08.02.2006 of this Court in W.A.No.2351 of 2005 (V.V. Kurian v. Kerala State Election Commission and Ors., the facts disclose that the appellant therein was elected as a Municipal Councillor of the Kothamangalam Municipality after contesting the election under the banner of the political party, Indian National Congress-I (INC-I). The 2nd respondent was also elected under the banner of INC-I. The election was fought by the INC-I by forming a coalition which was called UDF which consisted of the INC-I and some other political parties including Kerala Congress (M). The opposition coalition was called LDE Immediately after the election of the Municipality, a Chairman and Vice-Chairman were elected both of whom subsequently resigned from the respective posts. An election was therefore held to these posts which became vacant consequent to the resignation of the erstwhile incumbents. The 2nd respondent contended that the UDF had convened a meeting of its Councillors, in which all members including the appellant participated and it was decided to field the 2nd respondent as a candidate for the post of Chairman. An election was therefore held to these posts which became vacant consequent to the resignation of the erstwhile incumbents. The 2nd respondent contended that the UDF had convened a meeting of its Councillors, in which all members including the appellant participated and it was decided to field the 2nd respondent as a candidate for the post of Chairman. A candidate belonging to Kerala Congress-M was decided to be fielded as a candidate for the post of Vice-Chairman. According to the 2nd respondent, he was authorised to issue a whip to all members directing them to vote in favour of candidates set up by the UDF. The appellant, however, contested the election to the post of Chairman as a candidate fielded by rival coalition, namely LDF, and in the election that ensued the appellant won. Further, in the election conducted to the post of Vice-Chairman, the appellant voted in favour of the candidate fielded by the LDF in violation of the whip issued by the 2nd respondent. It was in these circumstances, that the 2nd respondent filed a petition before the Election Commission seeking a disqualification of the appellant and the Election Commission disqualified the appellant. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge, the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, while considering the issue as to whether the appellant could be said to have voluntarily abandoned the membership of his political party also considered the issue as to whether the disqualification would be attracted when the appellant stood as candidate for the post of Chairman as a nominee of the LDF. The Court found as follows at paragraph 8 of the said judgment which reads as under: “8. Now, we shall advert to the question as to whether the findings as noted above was sustainable. Admittedly, the opposite candidate for Chairmanship was a member of the political party to which the appellant also belonged. Of course, the appellant has got a contention that the rival candidate was not the official candidate of his party, but he himself was the official candidate of the party. He heavily relies on the fact that among members who won the election under the banner of the political party INC(I), there were two groups, one group supporting the rival candidate and the other supporting the appellant. He heavily relies on the fact that among members who won the election under the banner of the political party INC(I), there were two groups, one group supporting the rival candidate and the other supporting the appellant. However, the undisputed fact remains that the appellant’s candidature was proposed by a member of the rival coalition, namely, LDF and was also seconded by a member of the rival coalition, namely, LDF. That would mean that the appellant himself could not muster support from his own party members to propose him and second him as a candidate of their party. On the other hand, he readily accepted the nomination by proposal and seconding by the members of the rival coalition. We are of the opinion that the same would certainly amount to voluntary abandonment of the membership of his political party, in so far as he could have very well refused the support offered by the rival coalition members. After having accepted their support and contested against a candidate who was a member of his political party, he cannot now turn around and claim that he has not voluntarily abandoned the membership of his own political party. Since this ground alone is sufficient to hold that the appellant has voluntarily given up the membership of the political party on whose banner he was elected as a member of the Municipality, we need not go into the other reasons upheld by the 1st respondent-Election Commission. Suffice to say that those conclusions are based on evidence adduced before the Election Commission which the Election Commission has found to be of probative value and accepted the same.” 6. It might also be apposite to note that the aforesaid decisions have been rendered keeping in mind the findings of the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors. (1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 651) which have been followed in subsequent decisions such as Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council) & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 747 = 2004 KHC 1646) wherein, in the context of interpretation of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, it was held that the provisions dealing with disqualification of legislators, on the ground of defection, are designed to give recognition to the role of a political party in the political process. (2004) 8 SCC 747 = 2004 KHC 1646) wherein, in the context of interpretation of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, it was held that the provisions dealing with disqualification of legislators, on the ground of defection, are designed to give recognition to the role of a political party in the political process. A political party goes before the electorate with a particular programme and it fields candidates at the election on the basis of such programme. A person who gets elected as a candidate set up by a political party is so elected on the basis of the programme of that political party. The provisions of the said Schedule and in particular Para 2(1)(a) proceed on the premise that political propriety and morality demand that if such a person after the election, changes his affiliation and leaves the political party which had set him up as a candidate at the election, then he should give up his membership of the Legislature and go back before the electorate. The same yard stick is applied to a person, who is elected as an independent candidate and wishes to join a political party after the election. It must be remembered that, ultimately what is sought to be prevented is the evil of political defection motivated by the lure of office or other similar considerations, and in the interpretation of the phrase “voluntarily giving up of membership of the party” one has to be guided by the principles laid down in the decisions referred above. In the instant case in W.P.(C).No.33329 of 2017, while the express provisions of the statute may not deal with a situation, where a member of a political party, which forms part of a coalition, acts against the interest of the coalition (as against the interest of his own political party), I am of the view that in the light of the binding judicial pronouncements referred above, the finding of the Election Commission that, in contesting as a candidate for the post of President of the Panchayat, after being sponsored by the rival coalition, and emerging successful in the said election on the strength of votes polled by the said rival coalition, the petitioner stood disqualified, on the ground that, he had voluntarily given up the membership of his own political party, cannot be seen as unjustified. This is especially so because there is no material on record that would suggest that the political party, of which the petitioner was a member, had decided to act against the interests of the coalition of which it was a part while contesting the elections. I, therefore, find that the impugned order of the Election Commission does not call for any interference by this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, these Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.