An elected municipal councilor can be removed from office on a “proven” allegation of maladministration even without a conviction in a criminal case on the same allegation, the Karnataka High Court has said.
The court made these observations while upholding the state government’s suit seeking the removal of three elected councilors of the Gadag-Betageri town council from their positions as councillors. They were removed for allegedly creating a fake resolution and forging the signature of the municipal officer on it and issuing possession certificates to some persons who were illegally occupying public land.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while dismissing the petition filed by Usha Mahesh Dasara, Anil M. Abbigere and Gulappa S. Mushigeri.
The court held that while the presumption of innocence applies strictly to criminal proceedings, it does not preclude administrative proceedings for eviction under Section 41 of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1964, if supported by material evidence.
While criminal liability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, administrative proceedings are based on a lower standard — a preponderance of probabilities, the court said, while clarifying that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for removing an elected councilor when documentary evidence shows wrongdoing.
The alleged forgery of the resolution attributed to the petitioners amounts to “mischief” or “disgraceful conduct” within the meaning and scope of Section 41 of the KMC Act, the court said, pointing out that the removal was based on documentary evidence and an independent examination of municipal records.
Noting that their wrongdoing had harmed the municipality, the court said that allowing them to continue as councilors while the criminal proceedings were pending posed a risk of further forgery and further harm.
Regarding the apprehension of the petitioners regarding their eventual disqualification under Section 16 of the KMC Act, the court said that although such a consequence is serious, “disqualification is not unreasonable but proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and necessary in the interest of public and democratic administration”.
Removing the petitioners sends a signal to other elected representatives that forgery and fraud will not be tolerated, the court said.
Published – 19 Feb 2026 20:44 IST