Kerala High Court
M.T. Johny vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2025
WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:85709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
M.T. JOHNY
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, MUNDACKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, VANNAPURAM P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685607
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 695033
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, THE OFFICER
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, PIN - 685603
4 THE SECRETARY
THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI, PAINAVU, IDUKKI,
PIN - 685603
WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:85709
5 THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
IDUKKI, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.,
PIN - 685603
BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KERALA
SMT. G.SHEEBA, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:85709
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is a resident of Division 14, Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition since he is aggrieved by the reservation of Vannapuram Division of Idukki District Panchayat for women for the ensuing 2025 election as per Ext.P4.
2. Out of 17 Divisions of Idukki District Panchayat, 9 Divisions are to be reserved for women of which 1 Division is to be reserved for SC, one Division for SC, one Division for ST and the remaining six Divisions are for general seats. There were 16 Divisions during 2020 election. Delimitation Commission eliminated two divisions and added three new divisions. New Vannapuram Division was formed taking 39.45% population of old Karimannor Division and 49.19% population of Mullaringadu Division, which were reserved for women in 2020 WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:85709 election and were reserved for SC and ST during 2015 election. Thus 100% of the new Vannappuram Division have been reserved consecutively during 2015 and 2020 elections. Ext.P2 Guidelines issued by the State Election Commission provides that when a new ward is formed by including more than 50% of the population of the existing ward, the new ward shall be treated as a ward under reservation existed during 2020 election. Ext.P2 is silent about the procedure to be followed when 100% of the population in new ward comes from reserved wards with less than 50% from each ward. Since 100% population of Vannapuram Division suffered reservation for the last consecutive elections, Vannapuram should not have been included for drawing by lot for selecting the wards reservation. But Vannapuram Ward was included and was selected by drawing lot for women reservation. The contention of the petitioner is that the selection of Vannapuram for women WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:85709 reservation in 2025 election is violative of the Constitutional mandates and the decision of this Court in Eldhose.K.T v. State of Kerala [2020(6) KLT 356] in which it is held that successive reservation of the same constituencies shall brought to the minimum and further reservation more than twice for any category shall not be permitted.
3. This Writ Petition was filed on 23.10.2025 and this Court as per Order dated 31.10.2025 admitted the Writ Petition and passed an interim order that election to Vannapuram ward will be subject to the result of the writ petition holding that there is force in the petitioner's argument and that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case. This Court did not interfere with the election finding that the election is to be completed on or before 20.12.2025, the date of expiry of the present term.
4. Petitioner filed W.A No.2626/2025 against the interim order and the Division Bench passed judgment dated 03.11.2025 setting WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:85709 aside the Interim Order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and leaving open the contentions and directing to bring up the Writ petition before the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal before issuance of election Notification by the State Election Commission. Thereafter, the Writ Petition came up before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge expressed his inability to take up the matter for final hearing on account of heavy listing of admissions and petitions. The matter was placed before me on 07.11.2025 as per the Order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on administrative side. I also could not take up the writ petition for final hearing on 07.11.2025 for want of time after completion of the admission and petition matters. When the matter was taken for consideration on the next working day on 10.11.2025, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2/State Election Commission pointed out that the Schedule of dates for WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:85709 the election process is announced by the Election Commission on that day and the Election Notification is proposed to be issued on 14.11.2025 and the Writ petition is not maintainable on account of the announcement of the Schedule of dates for the election process. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time for arguments and accordingly the writ petition was posted today and it was heard.
5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.C.Vincent, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2/State Election Commission Sri.Dipulal Mohan and the learned Government Pleader Smt.G.Sheeba for Respondents Nos. 1 & 3.
6. The question of maintainability of the Writ Petition cropped up for consideration on account of the announcement of the Schedule of dates for the election process by the State Election Commission during the pendency of the writ petition. The WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:85709 contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission is that after the announcement of the Schedule of dates for the election process, any interference by this Court would be an interference in the process of election which is not permissible under law. The issue is covered by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 11.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.23927/2020 and connected cases and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.11.2020 in W.A.No.1481/2020 arising from the Judgment in W.P.(C)No.23927/2020 & connected cases.
7. The aforesaid arguments of the learned Standing Counsel was refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that it is the publication of Election Notification which is relevant for considering the maintainability of the Writ Petition, which is proposed to be published on 14.11.2025 and not the announcement of the Schedule of dates for the election WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:85709 process, which is relevant. The judgments of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court cited by the learned Standing Counsel are clearly distinguishable on facts. The State Election Commission could not dispute the fact of inclusion the population covered by new Vannapuram Division consecutively for reservation for the third time. At any rate, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed on admitted facts in the view of the law laid down by this Court in Eldhose.K.T(supra). Learned Counsel pointed out that even if this Writ Petition is allowed it will not affect the conduct of the election as scheduled in any way. The Election Commission has to exclude Vannappuram Division from among the Divisions for drawing lot and select another Division, which could be done before the publication of the Notification on 14.11.2025. During 2020 Election, the announcement of the Schedule of dates for the election process was done on 06.11.2020 and the publication of the Election WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:85709 Notification was done on 12.11.2020. The Judgment in Eldhose.K.T.(supra) was passed on 04.11.2020 allowing the writ petition setting aside the order impugned therein and directing the respondents therein to undertake the exercise of allotment of reserved seats by rotation by draw of lots among the wards of the Panchayat concerned excluding the wards which were reserved twice successively. The State Election Commission completed the exercise within two days in compliance with the direction of this Court. It did not interrupt the process of election in any way. The Writ Petitions which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 11.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.23927/2020 and connected cases were the writ petitions filed subsequent to the announcement of the Schedule of dates for the election process on 06.11.2020 claiming the benefit of the judgment dated 04.11.2020 in Eldhose.K.T(supra). The present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner on WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:85709 23.10.2025, much before the announcement of the Schedule of dates for the election process on 10.11.2025. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1481/2020 arising from the Judgment in W.P.(C)No.23927/2020 & connected cases refused to interfere as, on the date of consideration of the Writ Appeal on 16.11.2020, the Election Notification was published on 12.11.2020. The learned Counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that the only thing to be considered by this Court is whether the interference is likely to interrupt, obstruct or protract the election in any manner if this Court allows the Writ Petition.
8. Both sides referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hassan Uzzaman v.Union of India[ 1982 Online KLT 1043] and Election Commission v.Ashok Kumar[ 2000(3) KLT 402] to substantiate their contentions. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in C.R.Suresh v. State of Kerala[AIR 2001 Ker 174] in which it is held that if more than 50% WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:85709 of the population was in the reserved ward that was considered to be a reserved ward, that had to be excluded while taking lots.
9. I have considered the rival contentions.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no specific finding either in the judgment dated 11.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.23927/2020 and connected cases or in the judgment dated 16.11.2020 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1481/2020 that once the Schedule of dates for election process is announced, Writ Petition relating to the election process is not maintainable in this Court. The learned Single judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.23927/2020 and connected cases mainly finding that those Writ Petitions were filed subsequent to the announcement of the Schedule of dates for election process, when similarly placed persons obtained relief in Eldhose.K.T(supra) and that the said petitioners can be regarded only as fence sitters. It was found that the matters WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:85709 need to be examined on a case to case basis and such exercise could not be undertaken by this Court before the date fixed for submission of nominations and that if reliefs are granted to eligible among the petitioners, the election needs to be postponed. In Eldhose.K.T(supra), the same learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions filed before the announcement of the Schedule of dates for election process and the same was complied by the State Election Commission before the conduct of election. It is true that this issue could not be agitated in an Election Petition after completion of the election process. Though I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, those contentions by itself will not persuade me to entertain the writ petition at this stage.
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, the main prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P2 Guidelines dated 24.09.2025 issued by the WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:85709 State Election Commission to the extent it is silent about the status of new wards with 100% population/voters from existing reservation wards, ignoring the mandate of Articles 14, 243D, 243T of the Constitution of India, Sections 7 and 9 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and Section 6 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Other prayers are ancillary to the main prayer. They are to quash Ext.P3 Proforma-I showing the percentage of population and the status of reservation during the years 2015 and 2020, prepared by the 4th respondent Secretary of Idukki District Panchayat and Ext.P4 order dated 21.10.2025 of the 3rd respondent District Collector, who is an officer authorised by the State Election Commission, for fixing the reservation wards under Section 10(2A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in Idukki District Panchayat, for the general elections scheduled to be held in the year 2025; a declaration that ward 14-Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat shall be WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:85709 a general constituency for the ensuing 2025 general elections; and to direct the 3rd respondent District Collector to re-fix the women reservation wards in Idukki District Panchayat after excluding ward 14- Vannapuram, as the same was successively reserved during the elections held on 2015 and 2020 and 100% population/voters are from women reservation ward during 2020. Ext.P3 Proforma and Ext.P4 Proceedings are issued in accordance with Ext.P2 Guidelines. Ext.P2 Guidelines cover formation of new ward taking 50% population of a single reservation ward. It does not cover when more than 50% of the reserved population is obtained by the new ward from several reserved wards with less than 50% population from each of the wards. I am unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that reliefs can be granted to the petitioner without interfering with Ext.P2 Guidelines. If this Court interferes with Exts.P3 and P4 which are prepared in accordance with Ext.P2 WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:85709 Guidelines, it would be an indirect interference of Ext.P2 Guidelines. The State Election Commission has followed Ext.P2 Guidelines for selection of reserved wards in the ensuing 2025 election. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission invited my attention to the Handbook issued by the State Election Commission for the authorized Officers for identifying reservation wards/Divisions. The said Handbook also is prepared in accordance with Ext.P2 guideline. In Hassan Uzzaman(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in election matter and held that if interference in a matter relating to election is likely to interrupt, obstruct or protract the election in any manner, the Court shall not exercise the power under Article 226. In Ashok Kumar(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the Court shall interfere in matters relating to election only if it is for correcting or WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:85709 smoothening the progress of the election and to remove the obstacles therein. Since the Schedule of dates for election process is announced as required under Section 49 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, any interference with Ext.P2 Guidelines will interrupt, obstruct or delay the election process.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not propose to consider the challenge against Exts.P2, P3 and P4 impugned in this Writ Petition at this stage. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE SHG/ WP(C) NO. 39600 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:85709 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39600/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE VOTERS' LIST RELATING TO WARD 16, AMBALAPADI, PART 2 OF VANNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED NIL EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 24.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA 1 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION, STATUS OF RESERVATION DURING 2015 AND 2020 PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF RESERVATION DIVISIONS RELATING TO IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2025 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-R2(A) THE TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING THE DETAILS OF PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION INCLUDED IN NEWLY CONSTITUTED WARD NO.14 (VANNAPURAM) OF 5TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT