Kappan says HC has no jurisdiction over disqualification plea

Kappan's statement disputing the High Court's jurisdiction over a disqualification petition was reported by a national newspaper (The Hindu), bringing the jurisdictional issue into public attention.

The headline indicates an existing disqualification plea whose appropriate judicial forum is being contested; the article is filed under Kerala news. The published report highlights Kappan's contention about jurisdiction.

The article as provided does not supply additional background on the disqualification plea, the nature of the alleged disqualification, or procedural history.

• Headline: 'Kappan says HC has no jurisdiction over disqualification plea'. • Published by The Hindu (Kerala section) on 2026-09-28; URL: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kappan-says-hc-has-no-jurisdiction-over-disqualification-plea/article71509602.ece. • The report presents Kappan's position that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the disqualification petition.

On the basis of the article headline and metadata alone, the core issue is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate a disqualification petition. Jurisdictional disputes determine which judicial or quasi-judicial forum will decide questions that can affect political representation and legal remedies. The article highlights the contention but does not provide details on the legal basis for Kappan's claim, competing positions, or the next procedural steps, limiting the depth of analysis that can be supported from the text provided.

Remember the key point: Kappan has publicly challenged the High Court's jurisdiction over a disqualification plea (reported in The Hindu on 28 Sept 2026, Kerala section). The available report is limited to the jurisdictional claim and lacks substantive procedural or factual detail about the disqualification matter. Challenges: • The article does not provide details about the disqualification plea itself (grounds, parties, or procedural history), making it difficult to assess the merits of the jurisdictional claim. • Absence of information on responses from the High Court, other parties, or legal authorities leaves uncertainty about how the dispute will be resolved. Way Forward: • The article does not report any immediate court orders, responses, or specified next steps; further reporting or source documents would be needed to track procedural developments. • Clarification will require access to the underlying petition, any rival filings, and judicial pronouncements—none of which are provided in the article excerpt.