The State Election Commission (SEC) has stayed the notice seeking to end the membership of Palakkad municipal councillor Prashobh C. Valsan, allowing him to continue in office pending a final decision on his petition.The order was issued on October 15 by State Election Commissioner N.

Seshadrinathan. It suspends the operation of the notice dated June 12, 2026, issued by the municipality, which cited his absence from three consecutive municipal council meetings as grounds for ending his membership under Section 91(1)(k) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.Mr.

Valsan, who represents Ward 24 and was elected on a Congress ticket, was absent from council meetings held on April 30, May 29 and June 10, 2026.ArrestedIn his petition, Mr. Valsan said he was arrested on May 27 in connection with a criminal case registered by the Palakkad South police and remanded in judicial custody.

He argued that his detention prevented him from attending the May 29 and June 10 meetings.He also said he had applied for leave before the May 29 meeting but that his request was not placed before the council for consideration. Later, he approached the Sessions Court seeking permission to attend the June 10 meeting under police escort.

The court rejected his request.Mr. Valsan also raised objections regarding the serving of notices for council meetings and questioned the legal basis for ending his council membership.Municipality’s stanceThe municipality opposed his plea, arguing that the statutory conditions for cessation of membership had been met and that the municipal secretary was authorised to issue the notice under Section 93(2) of the Act.The Election Commission said the circumstances of his absence, compliance with notice requirements and the legal authority for issuing the notice required further examination.It noted that his absence from the three meetings was undisputed, but said the legal effect of those absences had to be assessed under the relevant provisions of the law.The SEC held that the balance of convenience favoured keeping the notice in abeyance until the original petition is decided on.

It clarified that the interim order does not amount to a final ruling on the validity of the notice or the reasons for his absence. The commission has left all disputed factual and legal questions open for consideration at the final hearing.

Published - October 22, 2026 08:39 pm IST