Ahmed Kutty T.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2025

[Cites 126, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ahmed Kutty T.P vs State Of Kerala on 14 November, 2025

These writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arise out of a common judgment dated 07.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.19332 of 2025 and connected matters/judgments dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.32965 of 2025, W.P.(C)No. 31421 of 2025 and W.P.(C)No.31016 of 2025, following the common judgment dated 07.10.2025. The writ petitions were filed to challenge the final delimitation orders published by the State Delimitation Commission, Kerala. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Delimitation Commission contended that on account of the legal bar under Article 243-O(a), 243-ZG and 329(a) of the Constitution of India, no interference is possible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the delimitation orders passed by the Commission. In support of the said contention, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on various decisions, including the decision of the Constitution Bench in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission [AIR 1976 SC 669]. On the other hand, the 2025:KER:86401 32 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the principle laid down in the decisions cited by the learned Standing Counsel for the State Delimitation Commission that the courts should adopt a keep its hands off approach, has been diluted after the exposition of the basic structure doctrine in the celebrated judgment in Kesavananda Bharathi Sripadgalvaru v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225]. They also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Kishorchandra v. Chhanganlal Rathod [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879]. The learned Single Judge considered the question as to whether the final delimitation orders are amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After considering the rival contentions on the above issue, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgement dated 07.10.2025, dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable, holding that the final delimitation orders are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the judgment, it was made clear that the dismissal of the writ petitions shall not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedies available to them under the law. Following the said decision, the learned Single Judge rendered the 2025:KER:86401 33 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 judgments dated 13.10.2025 in the connected writ petitions.

2. W.A.No.2440 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.20851 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellants, who are permanent residents of Abdul Rahman Nagar Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District, challenging Ext.P10 final delimitation order dated 15.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayat; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate a fresh delimitation exercise in respect of the said Grama Panchayat, in accordance with the statutory provisions, including the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Ext.P2 Guidelines dated 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the delimitation exercise culminated by the publication of Ext.P9 revised Appendix 1A, 2A and 4A dated 28.04.2025 and Ext.P10 final delimitation order is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2.1. W.A.No.2465 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.19384 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellants, 2025:KER:86401 34 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 who are permanent residents of Uduma Grama Panchayat in Kasaragod District, challenging Ext.P7 final delimitation order dated 15.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayat; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate a fresh delimitation exercise in respect of the said Grama Panchayat, in accordance with the statutory provisions, including the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Ext.P2 Guidelines dated 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the delimitation exercise culminated in Ext.P7 final delimitation order is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2.2. W.A.No.2475 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24889 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellants, who are permanent residents of Vallikkunnu Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District, challenging Ext.P4 series of final delimitation orders of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayat to the extent they are violative of the statutory provisions, regulations and also Ext.P2 Guidelines dated 2025:KER:86401 35 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to consider the factual contentions of the petitioners in the written objections submitted and to redivide the Wards of Vallikkunnu Grama Panchayat in strict compliance of Ext.P2 Guidelines and the observations made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext.P5 judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.42624 of 2024 and connected cases. The petitioners have also sought for other consequential reliefs.

2.3. W.A.No.2480 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22222 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant, who appeared in person, who is a resident of Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat in Kottayam District, who was the Member of the Grama Panchayat of Ward No.10 during the periods 2005-2010 and 2015- 2020, seeking a declaration that Ext.P1 final delimitation order dated 06.09.2024 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayat is unconstitutional and against law, which is liable to be set aside. The petitioner has also challenged 2025:KER:86401 36 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Ext.P2 proposal dated 18.11.2024 for delimitation, which was admitted by the 4th respondent Delimitation Committee and published vide Ext.P7 final delimitation order dated 19.05.2025 issued by the State Delimitation Commission. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the respondents to accept the proposal given in Ext.P8, after a detailed study; to conduct elections to the local bodies as per the provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, after rectifying the above anomalies, which can be done since a period of six months is remaining for the next elections to the local bodies.

2.4. W.A.No.2501 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.21675 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellants, who are residents of Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District, Sasthamcotta Grama Panchayat in Kollam District and Ayyampuzha Grama Panchayat in Ernakulam District, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the final delimitation orders issued by the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayats; and a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to undertake the division of Wards in the said Grama Panchayats, by considering the enquiry reports and in 2025:KER:86401 37 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 accordance with Ext.P3 Guidelines dated 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024, and the directions contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext.P5 judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.42624 of 2024 and connected matters. The petitioners have also sought for other consequential reliefs.

2.5. W.A.No.2509 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.19182 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant, who is a permanent residents of Ward No.2 of Vanimel Grama Panchayat in Kozhikode District, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 proceedings dated 25.04.2025 and Ext.P9 final delimitation order dated 19.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayat; a writ of mandamus commanding the State Delimitation Commission to pass a fresh delimitation notification under Section 10(3A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj, 1994, placing reliance on the recommendations made in Ext.P7 by the 5th respondent District Election Officer.

2.6. W.A.No.2550 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in 2025:KER:86401 38 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 W.P.(C)No.20908 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant, who is residing in Ward No.37 of Guruvayur Municipality seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 10.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission and Ext.P3 final delimitation order dated 25.05.2025 in respect of the said Municipality; and a declaration that Exts.P1 and P3 orders to the extent it affect Guruvayur Municipality are ultra vires the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

2.7. W.A.No.2566 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.23028 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellants, who are residents of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation, seeking a declaration that Ext.P16 final delimitation order dated 26.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Municipal Corporation is arbitrary, illegal and it is violative of Ext.P1 Guidelines dated 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024 and the directions contained in Ext.P15 letter dated 15.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission and also the constitutional provisions and the legal mandates; to call for the 2025:KER:86401 39 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 records, including the assessment register maintained at Kozhikode Municipal Corporation as on 01.10.2024, leading to the issuance of Ext.P16 final delimitation order passed by the State Delimitation Commission; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16 final delimitation order in respect of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation; and a writ of mandamus commanding the State Delimitation Commission to carry out the delimitation process in respect of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation, after considering Exts.P3 to P9 objections filed by the petitioners.

2.8. W.A.No.2586 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.32965 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellants, who are permanent residents of Chengala Grama Panchayat in Kozhikode District, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order dated 02.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission, whereby Ward No.15 is renamed as Cherkala South and also Ext.P12 final delimitation order dated 15.05.2025 issued by the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayat and quash the same to the extent it deletes Ward No.15 (Berka) of Chengala Grama Panchayat; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to retain the name of Ward No.15 2025:KER:86401 40 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 as Berka, as existed prior to Ext.P12 final delimitation order; and a declaration that the renaming of Ward No.15 of Chengala Grama Panchayat is illegal, ultra vires the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, violative of the Guidelines dated 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024, and unconstitutional. Though Exts.P10 and P12 orders of the State Delimitation Commission are dated 02.05.2025 and 15.05.2025, respectively, W.P.(C)No.32965 of 2025 challenging the said proceedings and notification was filed only on 01.09.2025.

2.9. W.A.No.2594 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.31421 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant, who is a permanent resident of Vadakara Municipality in Kozhikode District, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 final delimitation order dated 26.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Municipality, as the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, unconstitutional. Though Ext.P6 final delimitation order is one dated 26.05.2025, W.P.(C)No.31421 of 2025 challenging the said notification was filed only on 20.08.2025.

2025:KER:86401 41 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 2.10. W.A.No.2599 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.31016 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant, who is a permanent resident of Pazhayakkunnumel Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 final delimitation order dated 15.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Grama Panchayat; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate a fresh delimitation exercise in respect of the said Grama Panchayat, in accordance with the statutory provisions, including the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Ext.P1 Guidelines dated 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024, after duly considering the objections and suggestions submitted by the petitioner and other residents; and a declaration that the delimitation exercise culminated in Ext.P5 final delimitation order is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Though Ext.P5 final delimitation order issued by the State Delimitation Commission is one dated 15.05.2025, W.P.(C)No. 31016 of 2025 challenging the said notification was filed only on 18.08.2025.

2025:KER:86401 42 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 2.11. W.A.No.2614 of 2025 arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.23281 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant, who is a resident of Ottappalam Municipality in Palakkad District, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 final delimitation order dated 26.05.2025 of the State Delimitation Commission in respect of the said Municipality. The averments contained in the statement of facts of the writ appeal, especially that contained in paragraphs 7 and 8, are not part of the pleadings in W.P.(C)No.23281 of 2025.

3. On 22.10.2025, when W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2468, 2475 and 2480 of 2025 came up for admission, the appeals were admitted on file. This Court granted an interim order to the effect that further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders passed by the Delimitation Commission shall be subject to the outcome of these writ appeals. On 31.10.2025, when W.A.Nos.2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2599, 2594 and 2614 of 2025 came up for admission, the appeals were admitted on file. In those writ appeals as well, this Court granted an interim order in terms of the earlier interim order dated 22.10.2025.

4. We heard detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in the respective writ appeal, other than 2025:KER:86401 43 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 W.A.No.2501 of 2025, the appellant in W.A.No.2501 of 2025, who appeared in person, the learned Standing Counsel State Delimitation Commission and the State Election Commission, the learned Special Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respective Municipal Corporation/ Municipality/Grama Panchayat. On 11.11.2025, during the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel has made available for the perusal of this Court, a notification dated 10.11.2025 issued by the State Election Commission, announcing the schedule of dates for the election of 2025. On 12.11.2025, the arguments were concluded by both sides.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants in the respective writ appeals and also the appellant in W.A.No.2501 of 2025, who appeared in person, addressed arguments with reference to the objections submitted to the delimitation proposal of the respective wards, due to serious irregularities in ward boundaries, house allocation, the number of inhabited houses, population computation, etc. The reports on the objections submitted to the delimitation proposals were not properly considered in the hearing conducted before issuing the 2025:KER:86401 44 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 final delimitation notifications. The final notifications contain serious errors, resulting in failure to ensure equal population distribution as per the mandate of the constitutional provisions, and also as per the requirements of the guidelines issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024. The observation contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.42624 of 2024 and connected cases was given a goby, while finalizing the process of delimitation. According to the appellant in W.A.No.2480 of 2025, who appeared in person, his alternate proposal for delimitation was summarily rejected in the hearing, without any valid grounds. The objection submitted to the delimitation proposal, pointing out various aspects, like the inclusion of inhabited houses, etc., was not even considered before issuing the final delimitation notification, which had resulted in failure to ensure equal population distribution as per the constitutional mandate and as per the requirements of the guidelines issued by the State Delimitation Commission. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the objections submitted to the 2025:KER:86401 45 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 delimitation proposals, on the ground of outdated census data, inaccuracies in ward boundaries, residential building numbers, etc., were not properly considered before publishing the final delimitation notifications. The learned counsel for the appellants in the respective writ appeals placed reliance on various decisions to buttress their contention on the maintainability of the writ petitions. The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2586 of 2025 contended that renaming of Ward No.15 of Chengala Grama Panchayat as Cherkala South is legally unsustainable. The learned counsel for the appellants in some of the writ appeals have also pointed out certain observations made by the learned Single Judge in the common judgment dated 07.10.2025, touching the merits of the factual contentions raised in the writ petitions.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Delimitation Commission and the State Election Commission contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge in the common judgment dated 07.10.2025 on the ground of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is perfectly legal, which warrants no interference in these intra-court appeals, in view of the law on the 2025:KER:86401 46 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 point. The legal and factual contentions raised on behalf of the State Delimitation Commission form part of the pleadings in the writ petitions covered by the common judgment dated 07.10.2025. In the writ petitions covered by the judgments dated 13.10.2025, in which a belated challenge was made against the final delimitation notifications issued by the State Delimitation Commission, the learned Single Judge followed the judgment dated 07.10.2025. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on various decisions in support of the finding of the learned Single Judge that the final delimitation orders are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. Chapter III of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, deals with the constitution of Panchayats at different levels. Section 4 of the Act deals with the power of the Government to constitute and specify the name and headquarters of the Panchayat. As per sub-section (1) of Section 4, the Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, (a) a Village Panchayat for each village or for a group of villages; (b) a Block Panchayat at the intermediate level; and (c) a District Panchayat 2025:KER:86401 47 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 for each District Panchayat area and specify the names and headquarters of such panchayats. Section 5 of the Act, which deals with the incorporation and administration of Panchayats, reads thus;

"Section 5: Incorporation and administration of Panchayats.- (1) Every Panchayat shall be a body corporate by the name of the Panchayat specified in the notification issued under Section 4, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall, subject to any restriction or qualification imposed by or under this Act or any other law, be vested with the capacity of suing or being sued in its corporate name, of acquiring, holding and transferring property, movable or immovable, of entering into contracts, and of doing all things necessary, proper or expedient for the purposes for which it is constituted. (2) A District Panchayat, a Block Panchayat and a Village Panchayat shall exercise such powers, perform such functions and duties and shall have such responsibilities and authorities as are provided by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force."

7.1. Section 6 of the Act deals with the strength of Panchayats. As per sub-section (1) of Section 6, the total number of seats in a Village Panchayat, a Block Panchayat and a District Panchayat to be filled by direct election shall be notified by the Government in accordance with the scale specified in sub-section 2025:KER:86401 48 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 (3) with reference to the population of the territorial area of the Panchayat concerned. As per the proviso to sub-section (3), the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in such Panchayats to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State. Section 6 reads thus;

"Section 6: Strength of Panchayats.- (1) The total number of seats in a Village Panchayat, a Block Panchayat and a District Panchayat to be filled by direct election shall be notified by the Government in accordance with the scale specified in sub-section (3) with reference to the population of the territorial area of the Panchayat concerned. (2) The Government may, after publication of the relevant figures of each census, by notification alter the total number of seats in a Panchayat notified under sub-section (1), subject to the scale specified in sub-section (3). (3) The number of seats to be notified under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not,-

(a) in the case of Village Panchayat, be less than fourteen or more than twenty-four;

(b) in the case of a Block Panchayat, be less than fourteen or more than twenty-four;

(c) in the case of a District Panchayat, be less than seventeen or more than thirty-three:

Provided that the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number 2025:KER:86401 49 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 of seats in such Panchayats to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout State. (4) The procedure of fixing the strength of a Panchayat shall be such as may be prescribed." (underline supplied) 7.2. Section 7 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act deals with the composition of the Village Panchayat, Section 8 deals with the composition of the Block Panchayat and Section 9 deals with the composition of the District Panchayat.

7.3. Chapter IV of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act deals with delimitation of constituencies. Section 10 deals with the division of Panchayats into constituencies. As per sub-section (1) of Section 10, the Government shall by notification in the Gazette, constitute a Delimitation Commission consisting of the State Election Commission as the Chairman and four officers, not below the rank of Secretary to Government, as members. The said Delimitation Commission shall, as soon as may be after fixing the strength of a Panchayat at any level under Section 6 and after determining the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and for Women, (a) divide every Panchayat into as many constituencies as there are seats and fix the boundaries of such constituencies. As per the first proviso to 2025:KER:86401 50 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 sub-section (1) of Section 10, the population of each constituency shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 10, where the territorial area of a Block Panchayat is divided into constituencies, the boundaries of such constituencies shall not divide any constituency of any Village Panchayat and where the territorial area of a District Panchayat is divided into constituencies the boundaries of such constituencies shall not divide any constituency of any Village Panchayat or of any Block Panchayat, into more than one division.

7.4. As per sub-section (1B) of Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the State Election Commission or the officer authorised by it in this behalf shall, on determination by the Government of the number of seats to be reserved, earmark the constituency or constituencies to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women. The procedure for delimitation, prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 10, reads thus;

"Section 10(2): The Delimitation Commission shall,-

(a) publish the proposals of the Delimitation Commission in 2025:KER:86401 51 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 respect of the matters mentioned in clause (a) of sub-

section (1), with a notice specifying the date on or after which the proposals will be considered by it and by inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposals before a date specified in the notice, by affixing copies thereof on the notice board of the office of the Panchayat concerned and in such conspicuous places within the Panchayat area concerned;

(b) publish in the Gazette and in any two local newspapers having wide circulation within the Panchayat area concerned, the fact of publication under clause (a);

(c) consider all objections and suggestions that may have been received by the Delimitation Commission before the date so specified; and

(d) delimit the constituencies." (underline supplied) 7.5. As per sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the officer authorised by the State Election Commission in this behalf shall determine, as to which constituency, the constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women shall be allotted according to rotation, by draw of lots at the time, date and place fixed by the Commission in this behalf, by notification. As per sub-section (2B) of Section 10, after the draw of lots under sub-section (2A), the State Election Commission or the officer authorised by it shall 2025:KER:86401 52 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 issue an order determining the constituency reserved for the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribes or women.

7.6. As per sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, an order made by the State Election Commission or the officer authorised by it or the Delimitation Commission shall not be called in question in any Court of law. As per sub-section (3A) of Section 10, inserted by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2014, with effect from 23.12.2014, every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to the delimitation of constituencies under this Section shall be published in the Gazette and shall have the force of law. As per sub-section (4) of Section 10, the Delimitation Commission shall furnish free of cost three copies each of the proposals published and the final orders issued under sub-section (2) to the committees at the Panchayat level concerned of all political parties having representation in the Legislative Assembly and copies of such orders shall also be made available for sale, at the price fixed by the Delimitation Commission, to all the public who require them.

8. Part IX of the Constitution of India, inserted by the 2025:KER:86401 53 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, titled 'Panchayats', encompasses Articles 243 to 243-O. Article 243-B provides for the constitution of Panchayats. As per clause (1) of Article 243-B, there shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part. As per clause (2) of Article 243-B, notwithstanding anything in clause (1), Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs.

8.1. Article 243-C of the Constitution of India provides for the composition of Panchayats. As per clause (1) of Article 243-C, subject to the provisions of this Part, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the composition of Panchayats. As per the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-C, the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in such Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State. As per clause (2) of Article 243-C, all the seats in a Panchayat shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and, for this 2025:KER:86401 54 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 purpose, each Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such a manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area.

8.2. Article 243-D of the Constitution of India provides for the reservation of seats and Article 243-E provides for the duration of Panchayats, etc. As per the mandate of clause (1) of Article 243-E, every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. As per sub- clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 243-E, an election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1). Article 243-E reads thus;

"Article 243-E: Duration of Panchayats, etc.- (1) Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. (2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in 2025:KER:86401 55 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 clause (1).

(3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed-

(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1);

(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution:

Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Panchayat for such period.

(4) A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a Panchayat before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued under clause (1) had it not been so dissolved." (underline supplied) 8.3. Article 243-K of the Constitution of India provides for elections to the Panchayats. As per clause (1) of Article 243-K, the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor. Article 243-K reads thus;

"Article 243-K: Elections to the Panchayats.- (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of 2025:KER:86401 56 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine:

Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court and the conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (3) The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by clause (1).

(4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats."

8.4. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India provides for a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. As per the mandate of clause (a) of Article 243-O, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such 2025:KER:86401 57 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243- K, shall not be called in question in any Court. Article 243-O reads thus;

"Article 243-O: Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -

(a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any Court;

(b) No election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." (underline supplied)

9. Chapter II of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 deals with the constitution, alteration and conversion of Municipalities. Section 4 of the Act deals with the constitution, alteration and conversion of Municipalities. As per sub-section (1) of Section 4, the Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute with effect from such date as specified in the notification, (a) a 'Town Panchayat' for a transitional area; (b) a 'Municipal Council' for a smaller urban area; and (c) a 'Municipal Corporation' for a larger urban area, and specify the name of such Municipalities. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Government may, by 2025:KER:86401 58 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 notification, (a) exclude any municipal area from the operation of this Act; or (b) exclude from a municipal area comprised therein and defined in the notification; or (c) divide any municipal area into two or more municipal areas; or (d) unite two or more municipal areas; or (e) unite the territorial area of a Panchayat geographically lying adjacent to a municipal area, with the Municipality; or (f) convert a Village Panchayat into a Town Panchayat or a Municipal Council; or (g) convert a Town Panchayat into a Municipal Council; or (h) convert a Municipal Council into a Municipal Corporation.

9.1. As per the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Kerala Municipality Act, before issuing such a notification under sub-section (1), the requirements under Article 243-Q and sub-section (1) shall be fulfilled, and the suggestions and opinions of the Village Panchayat or Town Panchayat or Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation concerned shall be considered. As per the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4, any notification issued under this sub-section shall not be brought into force except in such a way as to coincide with the expiry of the term of the existing Municipal Council or Village Panchayat in that 2025:KER:86401 59 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 territorial area. As per sub-section (3) of Section 4, the Government may, at the request of a Municipality or after consultation with the Municipality, at any time, alter the name of a Municipality, after previous publication of the proposal by notification in the Gazette.

9.2. Chapter III of the Kerala Municipality Act deals with the constitution of Municipal Authorities. Section 5 of the Act deals with the incorporation and administration of the Municipality. Section 5 of the Act reads thus;

"Section 5. Incorporation and Administration of Municipality.- (1) Every Municipality shall be a body corporate by the name of the Municipality specified in the notification issued under Section 4, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall, subject to any restriction or alteration imposed by or under this Act or any other law, be vested with the capacity of suing or being sued in its corporate name, of acquiring, holding and transferring property, movable or immovable, of entering into contracts, and of doing all things necessary, proper or expedient for the purpose for which it is so constituted. (2) Every Municipality shall exercise such powers, perform such duties and functions and shall have such responsibilities and authority as are provided by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force."

2025:KER:86401 60 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 9.3. Section 7 of the Kerala Municipality Act deals with the duration of Municipalities and filling up of vacancies. As per sub- section (1) of Section 7, every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. As per clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 7, an election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in sub-section (1). Section 7 of the Act reads thus;

"Section 7: Duration of Municipalities and filling up of vacancies.- (1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.

(2) An election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed,-

(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in sub-section (1); or

(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution; as the case may be:

Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election for constituting the Municipality for such period. (3) A Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a Municipality before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the 2025:KER:86401 61 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 dissolved Municipality would have continued under sub- section (1), had it not be so dissolved.

(3A) A casual vacancy in the office of a Councillor shall be reported directly by the Secretary concerned to the State Election Commission within seven days from the date of occurrence of that vacancy and the Secretary who fails to report so without proper reason shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees and for which the State Election Commission shall have power to initiate the prosecution steps.

(4) Election to fill a casual vacancy in the office of a Councillor shall be held by the State Election Commission within six months after the occurrence of that vacancy:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to hold an election to fill a vacancy, the duration of which is less than six months. (5) A Councillor elected to fill a casual vacancy shall be eligible to hold office for the remaining term of the person in whose place he was elected." (underline supplied) 9.4. Section 9 of the Kerala Municipality Act provides for reservation, subject to Article 334 of the Constitution of India.

Section 9 of the Act reads thus;

"Section 9: Reservation to be subject to Article 334.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6 and Section10, reservation of seats in the Municipalities and in the offices of Chairman or Mayor thereof, as the case may be, for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period fixed in 2025:KER:86401 62 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Article 334 for the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the State Legislative Assembly:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any such reservation in a then existing Municipality until the expiration of its duration or its dissolution, as the case may be."

9.5. Chapter VI of the Kerala Municipality Act deals with elections to Municipalities. Section 68 of the Act deals with elections to Municipalities. As per Section 68, the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls, for and the conduct of all elections to the Municipalities shall vest in the State Election Commission.

9.6. Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act deals with the division of Municipalities into wards for election, reservation, etc. As per sub-section (1) of Section 69, for the purpose of election of Councillors to Municipalities, the Delimitation Commission constituted by Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 shall, after previous publication of the proposals inviting objections or suggestions, if any and after considering the same, divide the Municipalities into as many wards as there are number of seats as notified under 2025:KER:86401 63 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 section and determine the boundaries thereof. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 69, the population of each ward in a Municipality shall, as far as practicable, be equal.

9.7. As per sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act, copies of the proposals published and final orders issued under sub-section (1) shall be published by affixing copies thereof on the notice board of the office of the Municipality concerned, and in such conspicuous places within the concerned municipal area. The fact of such publication shall be published in the Gazette and in two local newspapers having wide circulation within the municipal area concerned.

9.8. As per sub-section (2A) of Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act, inserted by the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2015, with effect from 14.06.2010, every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to the division of wards and the determination of their boundaries under this section shall be published in the Gazette, and it shall have the force of law. As per sub-section (5) of Section 69, no delimitation of wards or change of wards for the purpose of reservation shall be made in a Municipality after its constitution, except for the purpose of 2025:KER:86401 64 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 general election to that Municipality, and no such delimitation or change of wards shall, in any manner, affect the existing Municipality. Section 70 of the Act deals with the validity of delimitation, etc. As per Section 70, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of wards or allotment of seats to such wards shall not be called in question in any court.

9.9. Chapter VII of the Kerala Municipality Act deals with the notification of general elections and administrative machinery for the conduct of elections. Section 94 of the Act deals with notification for general elections to Municipalities. As per sub- section (1) of Section 94, a general election shall be held for the purpose of the constitution or reconstruction of new Municipalities before the expiration of the duration of the existing Municipalities or on dissolution. As per sub-section (2) of Section 94, for the said purpose, the Government shall, by one or more notifications published in the Gazette on such date or dates, as may be recommended by the State Election Commission, call upon Municipalities in the State to elect Councillors in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder.

2025:KER:86401 65 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 9.10. Chapter VIII of the Kerala Municipalities Act deals with the conduct of elections. Chapter IX deals with corrupt practices and electoral offences. Chapter X deals with disputes regarding elections. As per Section 163 of the Act, no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Section 164 deals with the Court competent to try election petitions. As per Section 164, the Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the Munsiff's Court having jurisdiction over the place in which the office of the Municipality is located.

10. Part IX-A of the Constitution of India, inserted by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992, titled 'Municipalities', encompasses Articles 243-P to 243-ZG. Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India provides for the constitution of Municipalities, which reads thus;

"Article 243-Q: Constitution of Municipalities.- (1) There shall be constituted in every State, -

(a) A Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area;

(b) A Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and

(c) A Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, 2025:KER:86401 66 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 in accordance with the provisions of this Part:

Provided that a Municipality under this clause may not be constituted in such urban area or part thereof as the Governor may, having regard to the size of the area and the municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as he may deem fit, by public notification, specify to be an industrial township.

(2) In this article, 'a transitional area', 'a smaller urban area' or 'a larger urban area' means such area as the Governor may, having regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non-

agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes of this Part." 10.1. Article 243-R of the Constitution of India provides for the composition of Municipalities. As per clause (1) of Article 243- R, save as provided in clause (2), all the seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area, and for this purpose, each Municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards. Article 243-T provides for the reservation of seats. As per clause (1) of Article 243-T, seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 2025:KER:86401 67 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Tribes in every Municipality and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Municipality as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality.

10.2. Article 243-U of the Constitution of India deals with the duration of Municipalities, etc. As per the mandate of clause (1) of Article 243-U, every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. As per sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of Article 243-U, an election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1). Article 243-U reads thus;

"Article 243-U: Duration of Municipalities, etc.-

(1) Every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer:

Provided that a Municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. (2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force 2025:KER:86401 68 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Municipality at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in clause (1).

(3) An election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed, -

(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1);

(b) Before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution:

Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Municipality for such period.

(4) A Municipality constituted upon the dissolution of a Municipality before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued under clause (1) had it not been so dissolved."

10.3. Article 243-ZA provides for elections to the Municipalities. As per clause (1) of Article 243-ZA, the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in the State Election Commission referred to in Article 243-K. As per clause (2) of Article 243-ZA, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislature of a 2025:KER:86401 69 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities.

10.4. Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India provides for a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. As per the mandate of clause (a) of Article 243-ZG, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243- ZA, shall not be called in question in any Court. Article 243-ZG reads thus;

"Article 243-ZG: Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -

(a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA shall not be called in question in any Court;

(b) No election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." (underline supplied)

11. Part XV of the Constitution of India, titled 'Elections', encompasses Articles 324 to 329. As per Article 324, the superintendence, direction and control of elections is vested in an 2025:KER:86401 70 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Election Commission. As per clause (1) of Article 324, the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission). As per clause (2) of Article 324, the Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.

11.1. Article 327 provides the power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections to Legislatures. Article 327 reads thus;

"Article 327: Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections to Legislatures.- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to either House 2025:KER:86401 71 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State including the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses." (underline supplied) 11.2. Article 328 provides the power of the Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature. Article 328 reads thus;

"Article 328: Power of Legislature of a State to make provision with respect to elections to such Legislature.- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in so far as provision in that behalf is not made by Parliament, the Legislature of a State may from time to time by law make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, the elections to the House or either House of the Legislature of the State including the preparation of electoral rolls and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses."

(underline supplied) 11.3. Article 329 of the Constitution of India provides for a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. As per the mandate of clause (a) of Article 329, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, 2025:KER:86401 72 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 shall not be called in question in any Court. Article 329 reads thus;

"Article 329: Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution -

(a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;

(b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature."

12. In Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission [AIR 1967 SC 669], a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court summarily dismissed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 in respect of the delimitation of certain Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petition was rejected on the ground that under Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India, the 2025:KER:86401 73 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 said notification could not be questioned in any Court.

12.1. In Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], before the Constitution Bench, it was contended that a notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act is not law and, secondly, it was not made under Article 327 of the Constitution. Section 8 of the Act deals with readjustment of the number of seats, Section 9 deals with delimitation of constituencies and Section 10 deals with publication of orders are their date of operation.

12.2. In Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], the Constitution Bench noted that the legal effect of the orders is given in sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act. Under sub-section (2), upon publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any court. It was the intention of the legislature that every order under Sections 8 and 9, after publication, is to have the force of law and not to be made the subject-matter of controversy in any Court. In other words, Parliament, by enacting sub-section (2) of Section 10, wanted to make it clear that orders passed under Sections 8 and 9 were to 2025:KER:86401 74 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 be treated as having the binding force of law and not mere administrative directions. Therefore, although the impugned notification was not a statute passed by Parliament, it was a law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision read thus;

"10. The legal effect of the orders is given in sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 10 of the Act. Under sub-section (2), 'upon publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court'. Under sub-section (4) (omitting the irrelevant portion) the readjustment of representation of the several territorial constituencies in the House of the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State and the delimitation of those constituencies provided for in any such order shall apply in relation to every election to the House or to the Assembly, as the case may be, held after the publication in the Gazette of India of that order and shall so apply in supersession of the provisions relating to such representation and delimitation contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1961.

11. It will be noted from the above that it was the intention of the legislature that every order under Sections 8 and 9 after publication is to have the force of law and not to be made the subject-matter of controversy in any Court. In 2025:KER:86401 75 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 other words, Parliament by enacting Section 10(2) wanted to make it clear that orders passed under Sections 8 and 9 were to be treated as having the binding force of law and not mere administrative directions. This is further reinforced by sub-section (4) of Section 10 according to which the readjustment of representation of the several territorial constituencies in the House of the People and the delimitation of those constituencies provided for in any such order [i.e. under Section 8 or Section 9] was to apply in relation to every election to the House held after the publication of the order in the Gazette of India and these provisions contained in the order were to supersede all provisions relating to such representation and delimitation contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1961. In effect, this means the complete effacement of all provisions of this nature which were in force before the passing of the orders under Sections 8 and 9 and only such orders were to hold the field.

Therefore, although the impugned notification was not a statute passed by Parliament, it was a law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution." (underline supplied) 12.3. In Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], with regard to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, it was argued before the Constitution Bench that the order 2025:KER:86401 76 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 under Section 9 was to have the force of law, but such an order was not itself a law. In support of the said contention, the attention of the Court was drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in His Majesty the King v. William Singer [(1941) Canada Law Reports 111] and the judgment of the Apex Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya [(1955) 2 SCR 1]. There, the Apex Court had to consider the effect of Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provided that every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shall be final and conclusive. The contention there put forward was that this provision put an order of the Tribunal beyond question either by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by the Apex Court in appeal therefrom. The intention of the Legislature was that the decisions of the Tribunals were to be final on all matters, whether of fact or of law, and they could not be said to commit an error of law when acting within the ambit of their jurisdiction. The Tribunals decided what the law was. The said submission was turned down by the Apex Court in Sangram Singh [(1955) 2 SCR 1] and it was observed, after referring to the judgment in Hari Vishnu v. Ahmed 2025:KER:86401 77 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Ishaque [(1955) 1 SCR 1104] that the jurisdiction under Article 226 having been conferred by the Constitution, limitations cannot be placed on it, except by the Constitution itself. In Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], on the facts of the case at hand, the Constitution Bench noted that the Court is not faced with that difficulty because the Constitution itself provides under Article 329(a) that any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies, etc. made or purporting to be made under Article 327 shall not be called in question in any Court. Therefore, an order under Section 8 or 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act and published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 would not be saved merely because of the use of the expression 'shall not be called in question in any court'. But, if by the publication of the order in the Gazette of India it is to be treated as law made under Article 327, Article 329 would prevent any investigation by any Court of law.

12.4. In Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], the Constitution Bench found that an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act would show that the matters therein dealt with were not to be subject to the scrutiny of any Court of law. Once the orders made by the Commission under 2025:KER:86401 78 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under sub- section (1) of Section 10 were to be treated as law, which was not to be questioned in any Court. It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the same. Once the Delimitation Commission has made orders under Sections 8 and 9 and they have been published under sub-section (1) of Section 10, the orders are to have the same effect as if they were law made by Parliament itself. The orders under Sections 8 and 9, published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, were to make a complete set of rules, which would govern the readjustment of the number of seats and the delimitation of constituencies. Paragraphs 19 to 21, 24 and 31 of the decision of the Constitution Bench read thus;

"19. An examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act shows that the matters therein dealt with were not to be subject 2025:KER:86401 79 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 to the scrutiny of any Court of law. Section 8, which deals with the readjustment of the number of seats, shows that the Commission must proceed on the basis of the latest census figures and by order determine having regard to the provisions of Articles 81 , 170 , 330 and 332, the number of seats in the House of the People to be allocated to each State and the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State. Similarly, it was the duty of the Commission under Section 9 to distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each State and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State to single member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the latest census figures having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to

(d) of sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of Section 9 shows that the work done under sub-section (1) was not to be final, but that the Commission (a) had to publish its proposals under sub-section (1) together with the dissenting proposals, if any, of an associate member, (b) to specify a date after which the proposals could be further considered by it, (c) to consider all objections and suggestions which may have been received before the date so specified, and for the purpose of such consideration, to hold public sittings at such place or places as it thought fit. It is only then that the Commission could, by one or more order, determine the delimitation of Parliamentary constituencies as also of Assembly constituencies of each State.

2025:KER:86401 80 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025

20. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before the date specified. Once the orders made by the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) were to be treated as law, which was not to be questioned in any Court.

21. It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published under Section 10(1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the same.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

24. Similarly, it may be said here that once the Delimitation Commission has made orders under Sections 8 and 9 and they have been published under Section 10(1), the orders are to have the same effect as if they were law made by Parliament itself."

xxx xxx xxx xxx

31. In this case, it must be held that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) of the 2025:KER:86401 81 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Delimitation Commission Act were to make a complete set of rules which would govern the readjustment of the number of seats and the delimitation of constituencies." 12.5. In Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], the Constitution Bench found that the powers given by the Delimitation Commission Act and the work of the Commission would be wholly nugatory unless the Commission as a result of its deliberations and public sittings were in a position to readjust the number of seats in the House of the People or the total number of seats to be assigned to the Legislative Assembly with reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the delimitation of constituencies. It was the will of Parliament that the Commission could, by order, publish its proposals which were to be given effect to in the subsequent election, and as such its order as published in the notification of the Gazette of India or the Gazette of the State was to be treated as law on the subject. The provision of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act puts orders under Sections 8 and 9, as published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself, which could only be done under Article 327, and consequently the objection that the notification was not to be treated as law cannot 2025:KER:86401 82 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 be given effect to.

13. In R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324], after referring to the provisions under clauses (1) and (2) of Article 170 of the Constitution of India, it was contended before a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that the exercise of the power in the matter of the extent of the reservations made for Bhutias-Lepchas has the effect of whittling down, correspondingly, the value of the votes of the Sikkimese of Nepalese origin and is destructive of the equality principle and the democratic principle. In the said decision, it was noted that the right to vote is central to the right of participation in the democratic process. However, there is less consensus amongst theorists on the propriety of judicial activism in the voting area. In India, the Delimitation Laws made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India are immune from the judicial test of their validity, and the process of allotment of seats and constituencies is not liable to be called in question in any Court, by virtue of Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India. But, the laws providing reservations are made under the authority of other provisions of the Constitution, such as those in Article 332 or clause (f) of Article 371-F, of which latter is a special provision 2025:KER:86401 83 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 for Sikkim. The rationale and constitutionality of clause (f) of Article 371-F and the other provisions of the electoral laws impugned in the writ petitions are sought to be justified by the respondents on grounds that first, a perfect arithmetical equality of value of votes is not a constitutionally mandated imperative of democracy and, secondly, that even if the impugned provisions make a departure from the tolerance limits and the constitutionally permissible latitudes, the discriminations arising are justifiable on the basis of the historical considerations peculiar to and characteristic of the evolution of Sikkim's political institutions.

13.1. In R. C. Poudyal [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324], the Constitution Bench noted that Article 2 of the Constitution gives a wide latitude in the matter of the prescription of terms and conditions, subject to which a new territory is admitted. There is no constitutional imperative that those terms and conditions should ensure that the new State should, in all respects, be the same as the other States in the Indian Union. However, the terms and conditions should not seek to establish a form or system of Government or political and governmental institutions alien to and 2025:KER:86401 84 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 fundamentally different from those the Constitution envisages. An examination of the constitutional scheme would indicate that the concept of 'one person one vote' is, in its very nature, considerably tolerant of imbalances and departures from a very strict application and enforcement. The provision in the Constitution indicating proportionality of representation is necessarily a broad, general and logical principle, but not intended to be expressed with arithmetical precision. Articles 332(3A) and 333 are illustrative instances. The principle of mathematical proportionality of representation is not a declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India. Accommodations and adjustments, having regard to the political maturity, awareness and degree of political development in different parts of India, might supply the justification for even non- elected Assemblies wholly or in part, in certain parts of the country. The differing degrees of political development and maturity of various parts of the country may not justify standards based on mathematical accuracy.

13.2. In R. C. Poudyal [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324], the Constitution Bench noted that the principle of one man one vote 2025:KER:86401 85 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 envisages that there should be parity in the value of votes of electors. Such a parity, though ideal for a representative democracy, is difficult to achieve. There is some departure in every system following this democratic path. In the matter of delimitation of constituencies, it often happens that the population of one constituency differs from that of the other constituency, and as a result, although both the constituencies elect one member, the value of the vote of the elector in the constituency having lesser population is more than the value of the vote of the elector of the constituency having a larger population.

14. In Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996) 6 SCC 303], a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court found that Section 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 provided that the Commission shall cause each of its orders made under Sections 8 and 9 to be published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned. Upon publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court. Because of these specific provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, in the case of Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], the 2025:KER:86401 86 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Constitution Bench held that notification of orders passed under Sections 8 and 9 of that Act had the force of law and therefore, could not be assailed in any Court of law because of the bar imposed by Article 329. The Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, however, merely provides that the draft order of delimitation of municipal areas shall be published in the Official Gazette for objections for a period of not less than seven days. The draft order may be altered or modified after hearing the objections, if any. Thereupon, it shall become final. The U.P. Act does not lay down that such an order, upon reaching finality, will have the force of law and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. For this reason, it may not be possible to say that such an order made under Section 32 of the U.P. Act has the force of law and is beyond challenge by virtue of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution. But any such challenge should be made soon after the final order is published. The Election Court constituted under Section 61 of the U.P. Act will not be competent to entertain such an objection. In other words, this ground cannot be said to be comprised in sub-clause (iv) of clause (d) of Section 71 of the U.P. Act. In the very nature of things, the Election Court cannot 2025:KER:86401 87 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 entertain or give any relief on this score. The validity of a final order published under Section 33 of the U.P. Act is beyond the ken of the Election Court constituted under Section 61 of the said Act.

15. In Association of Residents of Mhow (ROM) v. Delimitation Commission of India [(2009) 5 SCC 404], a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh summarily dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the notification issued in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 in respect of the delimitation of Indore Parliamentary Constituency. The petition was rejected on the short ground that the order of the Commission once published under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act is law made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India and cannot be called in question in any Court, by virtue of Article 329 of the Constitution. Before the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only such decision of the Commission determining delimitation of constituencies after following the mandatory procedure under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, if it is published, becomes 2025:KER:86401 88 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 a force of law and it cannot be questioned in any court. Thus, the protection under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act as well as Article 329(a) is available only when the mandatory requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 9 are complied with by the Commission. In support of the said submission reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 305].

15.1. In Association of Residents of Mhow (ROM) [(2009) 5 SCC 404], the Apex Court noted that it is true the observations made in Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 305] "that neither the delimitation of the Panchayat area nor of the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the Court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given" (SCC p. 332, para 45) may lend some support to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there could be a challenge in case where final determination of delimitation of constituencies was made without inviting any objections whatsoever. But that is not the ratio of the said 2025:KER:86401 89 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 judgment. The Apex Court noted that in Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 305], the said Court was not considering any similar issue as the one that has arisen for consideration in the case at hand. The Court did not take any view that the proposals in respect of each constituency shall have to be treated as an independent proposal and the Commission's power to determine delimitation of the constituencies is with reference to each constituency. The objections and/or suggestions, as the case may be, are required to be taken into consideration treating the proposals as for the whole of the State and delimitation of the constituencies with reference to a State as a unit.

16. In Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India [(2011) 1 SCC 228] the main thrust of the challenge before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir as well as before the Apex Court was on the question as to whether or not the action of the Government in postponing the delimitation of territorial constituencies of the State pertaining to the Legislative Assembly, until the relevant figures had been published after the first census taken after 2026, is legally sustainable. The Apex Court noted that in R.C. Poudyal [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324] 2025:KER:86401 90 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 the Court relied on the opinion of Earl Warren, C.J. in B.A. Reynolds [12 L Ed 2d 506]. At L Ed p. 536 of the Report, the learned Chief Justice held as follows:

"... We realise that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement."

It was held in R.C. Poudyal [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324] that a perfect arithmetical equality of value of votes is not a constitutionally mandated imperative of democracy and, secondly, that even if the impugned provisions make a departure from the tolerance limits and the constitutionally permissible latitudes, the discriminations arising are justifiable on the basis of the historical considerations peculiar to and characteristic of the evolution of Sikkim's political institutions.

16.1. In Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party [(2011) 1 SCC 228], the Apex Court noted that even S.C. Agrawal, J. who partly dissented with the majority in R.C. Poudyal [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324], agreed with the majority opinion on this aspect of the matter by holding that the principle of one man one vote envisages that there should be parity in the 2025:KER:86401 91 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 value of votes of electors. Such a parity though ideal for a representative democracy is difficult to achieve. There is some departure in every system following this democratic path. In the matter of delimitation of constituencies, it often happens that the population of one constituency differs from that of the other constituency and as a result although both the constituencies elect one member, the value of the vote of the elector in the constituency having lesser population is more than the value of the vote of the elector of the constituency having a larger population.

16.2. In Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party [(2011) 1 SCC 228], on a perusal of the aforesaid principles as laid down by the Constitution Bench in R.C. Poudyal [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324], the Apex Court opined that a right to cast vote is a valuable right but to demand any uniform value of one's voting right through the process of delimitation, disregarding the statutory and constitutional dispensation based on historical reasons is not a justiciable right.

17. In State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [(2021) 8 SCC 401], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court noted that 2025:KER:86401 92 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2020) 6 SCC 548] the Court dealt with certain interlocutory applications that were filed seeking directions for compliance with the constitutional mandate concerning elections to local bodies. In paragraph 65 of the said decision, the Apex Court noted the contentions raised by the parties before it. In Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [(2020) 6 SCC 548], the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which, before the election process could begin as per the State Election Commission's Press Release dated 02.12.2019, the State of Tamil Nadu increased the number of districts from 31 to 39 and also restructured various talukas. However, with regard to posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of District Panchayat Councils, elections are still sought to be held only for 31 posts. This resultant incongruity has prompted the appellants to file the applications with prayers to strike down the notification dated 02.12.2019; hold elections for the entire State comprising all 39 revenue districts; and conduct such local body elections only after completion of all legal formalities, i.e., after delimitation of the newly carved districts. A specific direction has also been prayed for, to compel the respondents to first carry out 2025:KER:86401 93 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 delimitation, reservation, rotation processes and fulfil all other legal requirements before notifying or conducting elections of any panchayat at the village, intermediate or district level. Paragraph 65 of the decision in Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [(2021) 8 SCC 401] reads thus;

"65. In Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2020) 6 SCC 548], this Court dealt with certain interlocutory applications that were filed seeking directions for compliance with the constitutional mandate concerning elections to local bodies. This Court dealt with contentions raised by the parties before it as follows: (SCC pp. 553-54, paras 10-14) "10. It, thus, emerges that before the election process could begin as per the State Election Commission's Press Release dated 02.12.2019, the State of Tamil Nadu increased the number of districts from 31 to 39 and also restructured various talukas. However, with regard to posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of District Panchayat Councils, elections are still sought to be held only for 31 posts. This resultant incongruity has prompted the appellants to file these applications with prayers to strike down the Notification dated 02.12.2019; hold elections for the entire State comprising all 39 revenue districts; and conduct such local body elections only after completion of all legal formalities, i.e., after delimitation of the newly carved districts. A specific direction has also been prayed for, to compel the 2025:KER:86401 94 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 respondents to first carry out delimitation, reservation, rotation processes and fulfil all other legal requirements before notifying or conducting elections of any panchayat at the village, intermediate or district level.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and after an in-depth analysis of various statutory provisions as well as the constitutional scheme under Part IX which envisages democratisation of grass-root level administration, we are of the view that, as per Article 243-B, panchayats have to mandatorily be constituted in a State at the village, intermediate and district levels. Article 243-C requires the State, as far as is practicable, to maintain a similar ratio between the population residing within the territory of a particular panchayat and the number of seats allocated to it, across all panchayats in the State. Further, each panchayat must be divided into territorial constituencies and per Article 243-D, seats in proportion to their population must be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in each panchayat.

12. It is, thus, clear that the constitutional object of Part IX cannot be effectively achieved unless the delimitation exercise for constitution of local bodies at all levels is properly undertaken. Such exercise in the State of Tamil Nadu must keep in view the criteria for delimitation of wards prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations, 2017 [formulated under the Tamil Nadu Delimitation Commission Act, 2017], which criteria must 2025:KER:86401 95 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 itself not be contrary to Article 243-C read with Article 243- B(1) of the Constitution.

13. Noticing how at the completion of the delimitation process there were only 31 revenue districts, but despite a subsequent increase in number of districts to 39, no fresh delimitation exercise has been undertaken, it is clear that the State Government cannot fulfil the aforestated constitutional mandate. There is no identified data elucidating population proportions and, hence, requisite reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be provided for, both in re village panchayat wards or Chairman/Vice-Chairman of District bodies. We, hence, have no doubt that the election process as notified by the State Election Commission on 02.12.2019, in respect of the newly constituted nine districts cannot be held unless fresh delimitation exercise in respect thereto is first completed. The State Government cannot justify holding local body elections of these nine districts by relying upon this Court's order dated 18.11.2019 - C.R. Jayasukin v. T.N. State Election Commission [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1664] - as the said order itself mandates notification of elections only after completing "all legal formalities".

14. The contention of the respondents that the present proceedings amount to "calling in question an election" and hence not being maintainable in view of the express constitutional embargos of Articles 243-O and 243-ZG does not impress us, for the present proceedings are only to further the expeditious completion of prerequisites of a fair 2025:KER:86401 96 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 election. Hence, the following ratio of a coordinate Bench in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216] squarely applies to the present case: (SCC p. 232, para 32) '32. ... (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.

(3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law.

(4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court.' "

2025:KER:86401 97 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Accordingly, directions were issued in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [(2020) 6 SCC 548] ordering the respondents, including the Delimitation Commission, to delimit 9 newly constituted districts in accordance with law and only thereafter hold elections for their Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels, within a period of four months.

17.1. In Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [(2021) 8 SCC 401] it was contended by the learned Solicitor General that the judgment in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [(2020) 6 SCC 548] is per incuriam in that it flies in the earlier decisions of the Apex Court.

The Three-Judge Bench found nothing in the said judgment as flying in the face of the earlier judgments of the Apex Court. On the contrary, the Court extracted the ratio in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216] and thereafter issued directions to the authorities concerned.

Paragraphs 67, 68 and 68.1 to 68.10 of the decision in Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [(2021) 8 SCC 401] read thus;

"67. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has exhorted us to hold that this judgment is per incuriam in that it flies in the face of the earlier decisions of this Court. We find nothing in this judgment as flying in the face of the earlier judgments 2025:KER:86401 98 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 of this Court. On the contrary, the Court extracts the ratio in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216] and thereafter issues directions to the authorities concerned.

68. A conspectus of the aforesaid judgments in the context of municipal elections would yield the following results:

68.1. Under Article 243-ZG(b), no election to any municipality can be called in question except by an election petition presented to a Tribunal as is provided by or under any law made by the legislature of a State. This would mean that from the date of notification of the election till the date of the declaration of result a judicial hands-off is mandated by the non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG debarring the writ court under Articles 226 and 227 from interfering once the election process has begun until it is over. The constitutional bar operates only during this period. It is therefore a matter of discretion exercisable by a writ court as to whether an interference is called for when the electoral process is "imminent", i.e., the notification for elections is yet to be announced.

68.2. If, however, the assistance of a writ court is required in subserving the progress of the election and facilitating its completion, the writ court may issue orders provided that the election process, once begun, cannot be postponed or protracted in any manner.

68.3. The non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG does not operate as a bar after the Election Tribunal decides an election dispute before it. Thus, the jurisdiction of the High 2025:KER:86401 99 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not affected as the non obstante clause in Article 243-ZG operates only during the process of election.

68.4. Under Article 243-ZA(1), the SEC is in overall charge of the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls, and the conduct of all municipal elections. If there is a constitutional or statutory infraction by any authority including the State Government either before or during the election process, the SEC by virtue of its power under Article 243-ZA(1) can set right such infraction. For this purpose, it can direct the State Government or other authority to follow the Constitution or legislative enactment or direct such authority to correct an order which infracts the constitutional or statutory mandate. For this purpose, it can also approach a writ court to issue necessary directions in this behalf. It is entirely up to the SEC to set the election process in motion or, in cases where a constitutional or statutory provision is not followed or infracted, to postpone the election process until such illegal action is remedied. This the SEC will do taking into account the constitutional mandate of holding elections before the term of a municipality or Municipal Council is over. In extraordinary cases, the SEC may conduct elections after such term is over, only for good reason.

68.5. Judicial review of a State Election Commission's order is available on grounds of review of administrative orders. Here again, the writ court must adopt a hands-off policy while the election process is on and interfere either before the process 2025:KER:86401 100 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 commences or after such process is completed unless interfering with such order subserves and facilitates the progress of the election.

68.6. Article 243-ZA(2) makes it clear that the law made by the legislature of a State, making provision with respect to matters relating to or in connection with elections to municipalities, is subject to the provisions of the Constitution, and in particular Article 243-T, which deals with reservation of seats.

68.7. The bar contained in Article 243-ZG(a) mandates that there be a judicial hands-off of the writ court or any court in questioning the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituency or allotment of seats to such constituency made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA. This is by virtue of the non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG.

The statutory provisions dealing with delimitation and allotment of seats cannot therefore be questioned in any court. However, orders made under such statutory provisions can be questioned in courts provided the statute concerned does not give such orders the status of a statutory provision. 68.8. Any challenge to orders relating to delimitation or allotment of seats including preparation of electoral rolls, not being part of the election process as delineated above, can also be challenged in the manner provided by the statutory provisions dealing with delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats to such constituencies.

68.9. The constitutional bar of Article 243-ZG(a) applies only to courts and not the State Election Commission, which is to 2025:KER:86401 101 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 supervise, direct and control preparation of electoral rolls and conduct elections to municipalities.

68.10. The result of this position is that it is the duty of the SEC to countermand illegal orders made by any authority including the State Government which delimit constituencies or allot seats to such constituencies, as is provided in Proposition 68.4 above. This may be done by the SEC either before or during the electoral process, bearing in mind its constitutional duty as delineated in the said proposition. 17.2. As held by the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [(2021) 8 SCC 401], the bar contained in Article 243-ZG(a) mandates that there be a judicial hands-off of the writ Court or any Court in questioning the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituency or allotment of seats to such constituency made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA. This is by virtue of the non obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG. The statutory provisions dealing with delimitation and allotment of seats cannot therefore be questioned in any Court. However, orders made under such statutory provisions can be questioned in Courts provided the statute concerned does not give such orders the status of a statutory provision.

18. In Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas v. Union of India [2023 SCC OnLine SC 2025:KER:86401 102 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 1712], while dealing with the question as to whether Delimitation Commission can amend the notification dated 04.09.2006 issued under the Delimitation Act, 2002, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court noted that the Delimitation Commission is a statutory body under the Delimitation Act. The 2006 Delimitation notification was duly published in the Gazette of India and of the States in the manner prescribed under Sections 4, 8 and 10 of the Delimitation Act. In accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the said Act, the order has the force of law, and cannot be called in question before any Court of law. The Three-Judge Bench noted that in Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], rejecting the argument that the Delimitation Act was passed under Article 82 of the Constitution of India and not Article 327 and that the Act was thus exempt from the Bar under Article 329, the Constitution Bench held that the Act was made under Article 327. Thus, even though the notification issued under Section 10 of the Delimitation Act is not a statute, it has been held to have the effect of a law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats under not only Section 10 of the Delimitation Act but also under Article 327 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the case at 2025:KER:86401 103 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 hand, the Three-Judge Bench found that the 2006 Delimitation notification, having the force of law under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, is protected also by virtue of Article 329. In view of Article 329, the 2006 Delimitation notification cannot be called in question in any Court. Any changes to 2006 notification could only have been made in accordance with the Delimitation Act. The Act envisages changes/suggestions only until the publication of the final notification, consequent to which, the notification assumes the force of law in supersession of any other law for the time being in force. In view of Article 329 of the Constitution of India, it is beyond the realm of judicial review.

19. In Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 12 SCC 770] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was considering a writ petition in which the validity of Section 10(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Act, 1956, Sections 12, 23 and 30 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 was under challenge, as being arbitrary and usurping the powers and independence of the State Election Commission. In the said decision the Apex Court found that if the 2025:KER:86401 104 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 grounds pressed into service by the State authorities were to be accepted, it would be infeasible for any Election Commission - be it Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission - to notify the election programme well-in-time and to ensure that newly elected body is installed before the expiry of five years tenure of the outgoing elected body. That would defeat the constitutional mandate and go against the tenet of local self-government by democratically elected representatives, uninterrupted. To put it differently, completion of delimitation exercise or be it triple test formality, as the case may be, can wait if not completed well before the expiry of five years term of the outgoing elected body, including giving enough time to the Election Commission to complete the election process within such time. Thus, the declaration of election programme cannot be delayed by the Election Commission on that account. For, it would inevitably result in creating hiatus situation upon expiry of five years term of outgoing elected body. Such an eventuality needs to be eschewed by all the duty holders. A priori, it is not only a constitutional obligation of the State Election Commission but also of the State Government including of the constitutional Courts.

2025:KER:86401 105 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025

20. In Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879], a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with the validity of the order passed by the Delimitation Commission, which was undertaken wayback in the year 2002. In paragraph 3 of that judgment the Apex Court noted that much water has flown under the bridge since then, including the undertaking of a fresh delimitation exercise by the competent authority. However, the Two-Judge Bench did not approve the view taken by the High Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was observed that, although Article 329 undeniably restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny re: validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, it cannot be construed to have been imposed for every action of delimitation exercise. If judicial intervention is deemed completely barred, citizens would not have any forum to plead their grievances, leaving them solely at the mercy of the Delimitation Commission. As a constitutional 2025:KER:86401 106 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 court and guardian of public interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary to the Court's duties and the principle of separation of powers.

20.1. In paragraph 6 of the decision in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879], the Two- Judge Bench observed that the aforesaid understanding at paragraph 5 is supported by a Three-Judge Bench decision in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N. [(2020) 6 SCC 548, para 14] where the Court was called upon to interpret Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution, which mirror the aforementioned Article 329. Rejecting the contention that these provisions place a complete bar on judicial intervention, it was noted that a constitutional Court can intervene for facilitating the elections or when a case for mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out. Using this, the Court directed delimitation to be conducted for nine new districts. Recently, a Three-Judge Bench in Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [(2021) 8 SCC 401, para 67], affirmed the ratio of the above-cited decision, while discussing the principles on Article 329(a), and rejected the contention which sought to prove it as per incuriam.

2025:KER:86401 107 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 20.2. In Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879], the Two-Judge Bench held that, while the Courts shall always be guided by the settled principles regarding scope, ambit and limitations on the exercise of judicial review in delimitation matters, there is nothing that precludes them to check the validity of the orders passed by the Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution. If the order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to the constitutional values, the Court can grant the appropriate remedy to rectify the situation.

20.3. In Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879], in order to contend that any kind of judicial intervention is fully prohibited, the respondents relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669]. The Two-Judge Bench dealt with that contention in paragraph 8 of the decision, which reads thus;

"6. ............... A closer examination of the aforementioned case, however, would show that the Court in that case restricted judicial intervention when the same would unnecessarily delay the election process. This is writ large from the following paragraph, where the Court explicated 2025:KER:86401 108 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 the reason behind adopting the hands-off approach: (SCC OnLine SC para 20)"

"20. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before the date specified. Once the orders made by the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) were to be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court."

20.4. In Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879], the Two-Judge Bench concluded that the judgment in Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669] does not support the respondents' contention regarding a complete restriction on judicial review. A constitutional court can undertake 2025:KER:86401 109 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 the exercise of judicial review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage.

21. As already noticed hereinbefore, in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [(2020) 6 SCC 548], the Three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case in which, before the election process could begin as per the State Election Commission's Press Release dated 02.12.2019, the State of Tamil Nadu increased the number of districts from 31 to 39 and also restructured various talukas. However, with regard to posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of District Panchayat Councils, elections are still sought to be held only for 31 posts. This resultant incongruity has prompted the appellants to file the applications with prayers to strike down the notification dated 02.12.2019; hold elections for the entire State comprising all 39 revenue districts; and conduct such local body elections only after completion of all legal formalities, i.e., after delimitation of the newly carved districts. A specific direction has also been prayed for, to compel the respondents to first carry out delimitation, reservation, rotation processes and fulfil all other legal requirements before notifying or conducting elections of any panchayat at the village, intermediate or district level. The Three-

2025:KER:86401 110 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Judge Bench found that the election process as notified by the State Election Commission on 02.12.2019, in respect of the newly constituted nine districts, cannot be held unless a fresh delimitation exercise in respect thereto is first completed. It was also found that the State Government cannot justify holding local body elections of these nine districts by relying upon the order dated 18.11.2019 - C.R. Jayasukin v. T.N. State Election Commission [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1664] - as the said order itself mandates notification of elections only after completing 'all legal formalities'. The contention of the respondents that the proceedings amount to 'calling in question an election' and hence not being maintainable in view of the express constitutional embargos of Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution of India was not accepted by the Three-Judge Bench, stating that the proceedings are only to further the expeditious completion of prerequisites of a fair election.

22. In Prithvi Raj v. State Election Commission, Punjab [2007 SCC OnLine P&H 738 : AIR 2007 P&H 178] a Five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was called upon to answer a reference doubting the correctness of the 2025:KER:86401 111 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 opinion of a Full Bench in Lal Chand v. State of Haryana [AIR 1999 P&H 1]. The Five-Judge Bench noted that the Full Bench in Lal Chand [AIR 1999 P&H 1] has held that the provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution would have to be read down and made subject to Article 226. This interpretation negates the ratio in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [AIR 1978 SC 851]. The Five-Judge Bench opined that, a harmonious interpretation to these provisions, as assigned by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill [AIR 1978 SC 851], while interpreting a similar provision, namely, Article 329(b) of the Constitution, and as explained in paragraph 24 would suitably resolve this apparent conundrum of constitutional interpretation. Article 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution, cannot be read down or held to be ultra vires of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Article 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution have to be read in the light of the principles of law, as set down in Mohinder Singh Gill [AIR 1978 SC 851], and the judgments referred to in paragraphs 25, 31, 32 and 33, that the High Court would not entertain a challenge 'calling in question' an 'election'. Challenge to an election, would be postponed, to a time and stage 2025:KER:86401 112 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 after the conclusion of the 'election' and then also by an election petition, a High Court would, in the exercise of judicial restraint, postpone judicial review to a stage after the Election Tribunal adjudicates the election petition. The power of a High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would, however, be available, where exercise of the said power subserves the progress of the election, facilitates its completion, and is exercised to further the election process. One should not forget that the statutory mandate to the authority under the Election Commission Act is to conduct free and fair poll. For achieving that objective and in furtherance thereof, there is no fetter to achieve that objective by invoking extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

23. In Eldhose K.T. v. State of Kerala [2020 (6) KLT 356], a learned Single Judge of this Court noted that Articles 243- O(a) and 243-ZG(a) of the Constitution bar challenge against the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Articles 243-K and 243-ZA of the Constitution. On the facts of the case at hand, the learned Single Judge noted that 2025:KER:86401 113 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 the case set out by the Election Commission is that the constituencies in Kalady Grama Panchayat and Pala Municipality are delimited and, therefore, allotment of seats to the constituencies in the said local bodies cannot be challenged. As explicit from Articles 243-O(a) and 243-ZG(a) of the Constitution, in order to apply the bar under the said provisions, the validity of a law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or relating to the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made either under Article 243-K or Article 243-ZA of the Constitution should be under challenge. A perusal of Articles 243- K(4) and 243-ZA(2) of the Constitution would indicate that the laws referred to in the said Articles are laws made by the concerned legislatures. Section 7 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and Section 6 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, are certainly laws falling within the scope of the aforesaid Articles. The aforesaid statutory provisions, however, are not under challenge in the writ petitions. The said statutory provisions, of course, confer power on the State Government to fix the number of seats to be reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, as also women belonging to the Scheduled 2025:KER:86401 114 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The orders issued by the State Government fixing the number of seats to be reserved for the aforesaid categories are also not under challenge. On the other hand, what is under challenge in the writ petitions is the procedure adopted by the officers authorised by the Election Commission in the matter of distributing the aforesaid reserved seats, as also seats reserved for women among the constituencies.

23.1. In Eldhose K.T. [2020 (6) KLT 356], the learned Single Judge noted that on the question as to whether the procedure adopted by the Election Commission in the matter of distributing the reserved seats among the constituencies could be regarded as a law falling within the scope of Articles 243-K and 243-ZA of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge noted that a notification issued by the Election Commission of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, distributing the reserved seats among the constituencies of Delhi Municipal Corporation was under

challenge in a batch of writ petitions before the Delhi High Court in Ramesh Dutta v. State Election Commission [2007 SCC Online Del 365]. As in the case at hand, the Election Commission of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has raised a preliminary 2025:KER:86401 115 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 objection in the said cases also as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, placing reliance on Article 243-ZG(a) of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court repelled the said contention, holding that the said decision of the Election Commission would not fall within the scope of 'the law' as provided for under Article 243-ZA of the Constitution, and therefore, the bar under Article 243-ZG(a) of the Constitution does not apply.

23.2. In Eldhose K.T. [2020 (6) KLT 356], the learned Single Judge noted that an identical issue arose before the Karnataka High Court also in Ravindra Nayak v. Karnataka State Election Commission [ILR 2019 Kar. 1409], where the challenge was against the notification issued by the Election Commission, allotting the reserved seats to various constituencies. The objection raised as to the maintainability of the writ petitions, placing reliance on Article 243-ZG of the Constitution was repelled by the Karnataka High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court noted that no challenge has been made to the validity of any law purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA of the Constitution; instead, what was sought is mere enforcement of law as reflected in the 2025:KER:86401 116 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 legislation and guidelines issued by the State, which provide for a reservation matrix and mandate rotation. In Eldhose K.T [2020 (6) KLT 356], the learned Single Judge agreed with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court in the decisions referred to supra.

24. In Rajesh Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Panjab and others [2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7307], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.2440 of 2025, a Division Bench of the Panjab and Haryana High Court pointed out the importance of the delimitation exercise. In Para 26.1, the Division Bench observed that elections are not merely rituals to be performed periodically. The elections are the only effective tool to ascertain the will of the people for genuine self-

governance at the grassroot level, which is possible only through free and fair elections. 'Freeness and fairness' is a universally recognized standard by which a level playing field is ensured. It not only ensures that each competitor has an equal chance to succeed, but also that they all play by the same set of rules. The concept of free and fair elections includes the preliminary stages to the election, such as delimitation of constituencies and 2025:KER:86401 117 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 preparation or revision of electoral rolls. The entire electoral process is hugely dependent upon these stages for the free and fair election to really take place. The purity and sanctity of the election process and a level playing field are exclusively reliant on meticulous adherence to the principles enshrined in Rule 6 of the Delimitation Rules. These principles play a crucial role in providing equal democratic space in each constituency for under- represented groups such as women, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, compatible with the legislative intent. The principle of geographic compactness of the area giving due regard to physical features and existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities of communication and public convenience, reservation of wards where population of reserved categories, viz; Scheduled Caste, Backward Class are largest, rotation of reserved seats for women and other categories in different wards in the Municipality, door to door survey of population to collect identifiable data for the purpose of reservation of wards are central to entire delimitation process in keeping with the concept of democracy as also with the notion of level playing field. In a free and fair election, an independent and impartially administered 2025:KER:86401 118 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 delimitation process is essential. The authorities responsible for carrying out the delimitation are bound to follow the drill of the delimitation Rules in scrupulous compliance with these principles. The whole electoral process would be vitiated if any deviation from these principles is made by the concerned authority while carrying out delimitation. The election system must follow these Rules meticulously to allow the electorate's desires to find valid expression through the electoral results. It is vital for the very meaning of democracy at the ground level that the election structure is unbiased and transparent. An election cannot be considered 'free and fair' if there is an erosion of the level playing field. It would certainly impair the ability of these hitherto underrepresented groups to assert their political rights and emerge as leaders. A skewed playing field, thus, may stifle their capability to compete in elections and survive between elections. As such, the delimitation process must consistently conform to these principles to ensure a high degree of confidence of the public in the delimitation process. These principles are crucial for effective enjoyment of the equal opportunity provided to all to freely participate, contest and vote in the elections. The 2025:KER:86401 119 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 candidates are required to know explicitly, unambiguously and well in advance the voters of the wards, reservation of wards, etc., so that they can better plan their contest, as contesting an election is a valuable right, which cannot be taken away by carrying out a colourable exercise of delimitation of the wards to the disadvantage of some of the prospective contestants and to the favour of others which, thus tantamount to inequitable treatment in the election process. The State, being a Welfare State, ought to have adopted a procedure that is transparent and equitable to all contestants. In the said decision, the Division Bench held that the stage of judicial hands off for the Courts to interfere in any manner would arise only after the notification by the State Election Commission announcing the schedule of election, indicating the date of nomination and date of voting, and the Model Code of Conduct is implemented. It is the stage when the elections can be termed as 'imminent', otherwise the authority which is responsible for carrying out delimitation and issuance of notification under Section 13-A of the Municipal Act, announcing the proposed tentative date of elections.

25. As already noticed hereinbefore, Article 243-C of the 2025:KER:86401 120 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Constitution of India provides for the composition of Panchayats. As per the mandate of clause (1) of Article 243-E, every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. As per sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 243-E, an election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1). As per the mandate of clause (a) of Article 243-O, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any Court. As per sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, an order made by the State Election Commission or the officer authorised by it or the Delimitation Commission shall not be called in question in any Court of law. As per sub-section (3A) of Section 10, inserted by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2014, with effect from 23.12.2014, every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to the delimitation of constituencies under this Section shall be published in the Gazette 2025:KER:86401 121 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 and shall have the force of law.

25.1. Similarly, Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India provides for the constitution of Municipalities. As per the mandate of clause (1) of Article 243-U, every Municipality, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. As per sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of Article 243-U, an election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1). As per the mandate of clause (a) of Article 243-ZG, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA, shall not be called in question in any Court. As per sub-section (2A) of Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, inserted by the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2015, with effect from 14.06.2010, every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to the division of wards and the determination of their boundaries under this section shall be published in the Gazette, and it shall have the force of law. As per Section 70, the validity 2025:KER:86401 122 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 of any law relating to the delimitation of wards or allotment of seats to such wards shall not be called in question in any court.

25.2. As per the mandate of clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and sub-section (3) of Section 10 and sub-section (3A) of Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to the delimitation of constituencies under Section 10 shall be published in the Gazette and shall have the force of law, which shall not be called in question in any Court. Similarly, as per the mandate of clause (a) of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India and sub-section (2A) of Section 69 and Section 70 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, every order issued by the Delimitation Commission with regard to delimitation of constituencies under Section 69 shall be published in the Gazette, and shall have the force of law, which shall not be called in question in any Court. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], in the context of sub-sections (2) and (4) of Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, every delimitation orders of the State Delimitation Commission under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 2025:KER:86401 123 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 1994 or under Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, on publication in the Gazette shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any Court. Though such a notification is not a statute, it is a law relating to the delimitation of constituencies made under Article 243-K in relation to Panchayats and that made under Article 243-ZA in relation to Municipalities, which shall not be called in question in any Court.

26. In Chief Electoral Officer v. Sunny Joseph [2005 (4) KLT 599] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with the question as to whether an order issued by the Delimitation Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, and published in the Gazette under sub- section (2) of Section 10 is susceptible to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the specific bar contained in Article 329(a). The Division Bench noted that, the Constitution Bench while deciding Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669] made reference to another decision in N.P. Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer [AIR 1952 SC 64]. That was a case where the appellant was a person who had filed a nomination paper for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly 2025:KER:86401 124 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 from Namakkal constituency which was rejected. Consequently, he had moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and to direct him to include his name in the list of valid nominations to be published. The application was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer, by reason of Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The Apex Court examined the notable difference in the language used in Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution on the one hand and Article 329 on the other hand and held as follows;

"While the first two articles begin with the words 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution', the last article begins with the words 'notwithstanding anything in this Constitution'. It was conceded at the Bar that the effect of this difference in language is that whereas any law made by Parliament under Article 327, or by the State Legislatures under Article 328, cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, that jurisdiction is excluded in regard to matters provided for in Article 329."

(underline supplied) 26.1. In Sunny Joseph [2005 (4) KLT 599], before the Division Bench considerable reliance was placed by the learned 2025:KER:86401 125 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Amaravila Krishnan Nair v. Election Commissioner of India [1970 KLT 787] and it was contended that the draconian words that the order shall not be called in question in any Court which find place in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 and Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India may not be a bar in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which according to the learned counsel, cannot be taken away by any legislature. The Division Bench noted that in Amaravila Krishnan Nair [1970 KLT 787] the Court after referring to N.P. Ponnuswamy [AIR 1952 SC 64] held that if a person cannot question a material irregularity in the preparation of the electoral rolls in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for failure to comply with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, or the Rules, the position would be that it cannot be questioned either before or during the progress of or after the election. The Court felt it was difficult to uphold such a position, unless compelled by some clear provision of the law, as that would be sanctioning the vesting of a 2025:KER:86401 126 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 uncontrolled power in any agency bound to act in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1950 in the matter of preparation of electoral rolls. The Full Bench, in the above case, was dealing with the irregularity in the preparation of electoral roll and whether that irregularity could be questioned in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Preliminary objection of maintainability of the writ petition was raised on the basis of Article 329(b) of the Constitution and not under Article 329(a). So also the situation in N.P. Ponnuswamy [AIR 1952 SC 64]. It was in that context, the Full Bench opined that non-compliance with the mandatory provision of the Representation of People Act, 1950, may make the proceeding for preparation of electoral rolls null and void and that Section 30 of the Representation of People Act may not bar a suit for declaration that the proceedings are a nullity.

26.2. In Sunny Joseph [2005 (4) KLT 599], before the Division Bench, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- writ petitioner placed considerable reliance on the decisions of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kesavananda Bharathi Sripadgalvaru v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225], State 2025:KER:86401 127 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592] and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1] and other decisions, and contended that since Article 226 of the Constitution being basic structure of the Constitution judicial review of orders passed under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, cannot be excluded from the purview of judicial review. The learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner pointed out the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] wherein the exclusion of jurisdiction under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution was held to be not binding on Courts. Therefore, it was contended that any law as understood under Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India can be challenged under Article 226.

26.3. In Sunny Joseph [2005 (4) KLT 599], the Division Bench found it unable to agree with the aforesaid proposition urged by the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner. The Division Bench noted that basic structure theory enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Kesavananda Bharathi [(1973) 4 SCC 225], came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain [AIR 2025:KER:86401 128 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 1975 SC 2299] and in paragraph 667 of that judgment, Justice Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, dealing with the argument that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, noticed that when the Constitution was originally enacted it expressly excluded judicial review in a large variety of important matters. Reference was made to Articles 31(4), 31(6), 136(2), 227(4), 262(2) and 329(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court noticed that each of the provisions has a purpose behind it, but those provisions would show that the Constitution did not regard judicial review as an indispensable measure of the legality or propriety of every determination. Article 136(2) expressly took away the power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from the decisions of any Court or Tribunal constituted by a law relating to the Armed Forces. Article 262(2) authorised the Parliament to make a law providing that the Supreme Court or any other Court shall have no jurisdiction over certain river disputes. Reference was also made to Articles 103(1) and 329(b). Article 102 prescribes disqualifications for membership of the Parliament. It was noted that by Article 103(1) any question arising under Article 102 as to whether a member of the Parliament has become subject 2025:KER:86401 129 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 to any disqualification has to be referred to the President whose decision is final. Further, the President is required by Article 103(2) to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and to act according to its opinion. The Court noted that, in a vital matter pertaining to the election for membership of the Parliament, the framers of the Constitution had left the decision to the judgment of the Executive. Further Articles 327 and 328 give power to the Parliament and the State Legislatures, to provide by law, for all matters relating to elections to the respective legislatures, including the preparation of electoral rolls and the delimitation of constituencies. It was also noted that by Article 329(a), the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be called in question in any Court. Referring to Article 329(b), the Court pointed out that the Article provides that no election to the Parliament or the State Legislature shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority, and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Judicial review, therefore, can be excluded in certain limited areas, though it is considered to be the 2025:KER:86401 130 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 basic structure of the Constitution.

26.4. In Sunny Joseph [2005 (4) KLT 599], the Division Bench observed that the abovementioned decisions would show that even though judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, but the Constitution could exclude judicial review in certain situations. Articles 31(4), 31(6), 136(2), 227(4), 262(2), 243-O , 243-ZG , 329(a), etc., have excluded the scope of judicial review with a laudable objective pointing out that the judicial review in certain situations may not be regarded as an indispensable measure to determine the legality or propriety of actions. The Division Bench found that the difference in the phraseology used in Articles 329(a) and (b) may give some room for challenging the orders passed under Article 329(b), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on certain limited grounds, but not the orders relating to delimitation of constituencies which fall under Article 329(a). The words 'shall not be called in question' are absent in Article 329(b), but very much present in Article 329(a). Article 329(b) enables aggrieved person to question the election by an election petition as provided for under any law. The Division Bench found that the decision in Meghraj Kothari [AIR 2025:KER:86401 131 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 1967 SC 669] is an authority for the proposition that orders passed under Sections 8, 9 and 10(2) of the Delimitation Act have to be treated as law under Article 329(a) of the Constitution and, therefore, cannot be called in question in any Court. Therefore, the Division Bench declined jurisdiction holding that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, in view of the specific bar contained under Article 329(a).

27. In Kunhabdulla v. State of Kerala [2000 (3) KLT 45], a Division Bench of this Court examined the legal position with reference to the unamended provisions of Section 10A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was inserted by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2000, inasmuch as it conferred power on the Election Commission to review any order passed by the Government or the Authorised Officer. The said provision was later omitted by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 10.01.2005. In the said decision the Division Bench held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not excluded by virtue of the bar created under Article 243-O(a).

28. In Nanu v. State Delimitation Commission [2010 2025:KER:86401 132 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 (3) KHC 914], the common challenge in the writ petitions was in respect of the delimitation of Kadamboor Grama Panchayat and Ext.P4 final delimitation order passed by the State Delimitation Commission. The learned Standing Counsel for State Delimitation Commission filed a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petitions, pointing out the bar contained in Article 243- O(a) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in Kunhabdulla [2000 (3) KLT 45].

28.1. In Nanu [2010 (3) KHC 914], the learned Single Judge found that the legal position was examined by the Division Bench in Kunhabdulla [2000 (3) KLT 45] in the light of the unamended provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, namely Section 10A itself. The challenge was against the validity of Section 10A, which conferred power of review on the Election Commission on an order passed under Section 10, by the Authorised Officer, delimiting the wards. In that decision, while examining the said question, the Division Bench noted that the provisions enable the District Collector to delimit the constituencies and Section 10A of the Panchayat Raj Act confers 2025:KER:86401 133 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 the power of review on the Election Commission. While considering these aspects, it was held in paragraph 5 of the decision in Kunhabdulla [2000 (3) KLT 45] that Article 243- O(a), which bars the jurisdiction of any Court to consider the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, will not get attracted, where sweeping changes are made by the Election Commission to the delimitation order duly passed and published by the District Collector, after hearing objections, etc., under the guise of the power of review conferred on him under Section 10A of the Act, when the whole election process is yet to begin, and there is ample time left to undo the harm done by the former. In such a situation, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, at least for the limited purpose of testing the constitutional validity of the provision, i.e., Section 10A, under which the Election Commission has passed the impugned orders, varying the original order of the District Collector, without going into the merits of the order itself. Apart from the same, the Division Bench distinguished the decision in Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669] on the view that there is no provision in 2025:KER:86401 134 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 Section 10A that the order passed by the Election Commission will have the force of law when published in the Gazette and, therefore, it will not be law for the purpose of Article 243-O. Accordingly, the Division Bench held in paragraph 7 of the said decision that the bar under Article 243-O(a) will not be applicable.

28.2. In Nanu [2010 (3) KHC 914], the learned Single Judge found that in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court and that of the Division Benches noted in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said decision, the dictum laid in Kunhabdulla [2000 (3) KLT 45] cannot be applied on all fours to the situation pointed out in the case at hand. The learned Single Judge noted that, now Section 10(3A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act has been added making it clear that on publication in the Gazette the order of delimitation will have the force of law. Once the notification is published in the Gazette, then going by the decisions of the Apex Court, the bar applies, as it will be the law for the purpose of Article 243-O(a), and the non-obstante clause therein is important and becomes operative. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench in Kunhabdulla [2000 (3) KLT 45] is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the cases at hand and the legal 2025:KER:86401 135 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 position laid down by the various decisions of the Apex Court. The learned Single Judge noted that the above legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Association of Residents of Mhow (ROM) [(2009) 5 SCC 404].

29. The basic structure theory enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Kesavananda Bharathi [(1973) 4 SCC 225], came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi [AIR 1975 SC 2299] and dealing with the argument that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it was noticed that when the Constitution was originally enacted it expressly excluded judicial review in a large variety of important matters. Reference was made to Articles 31(4), 31(6), 136(2), 227(4), 262(2) and 329(a) of the Constitution of India. Each of the provisions has a purpose behind it but those provisions would show that the Constitution did not regard judicial review as an indispensable measure of the legality or propriety of every determination. By Article 329(a), the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be called in question in any Court. Judicial review, therefore, can be excluded 2025:KER:86401 136 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 in certain limited areas, though it is considered to be the basic structure of the Constitution. In Sunny Joseph [2005 (4) KLT 599], the Division Bench relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench in Meghraj Kothari [AIR 1967 SC 669], in order to decline jurisdiction, holding that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, in view of the specific bar contained under Article 329(a). The law laid down by the Division Bench in Sunny Joseph [2005 (4) KLT 599] is in favour of the question of maintainability raised on behalf of the State Delimitation Commission that the final delimitation orders of the State Delimitation Commission under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or under Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which is a law relating to the delimitation of constituencies made under Article 243-K in relation to Panchayats and that made under Article 243-ZA in relation to Municipalities, on publication in the Gazette, are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

30. As per the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-C of the Constitution of India, the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats 2025:KER:86401 137 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 in such Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State. Clause (2) of Article 243-C provides for the division of each Panchayat area into territorial constituencies in such a manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the population of each constituency shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area.

31. Placing reliance on the provisions contained in the Guidelines dated 24.09.2024 issued by the State Delimitation Commission for delimitation of constituencies in Grama Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat, for the year 2024, the appellants would contend that the failure to ensure equal population distribution would make the final delimitation orders manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to the constitutional values, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the above aspect, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Delimitation Commission would place 2025:KER:86401 138 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench R. C. Poudyal [(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 324], wherein it was held that the provision in the Constitution of India indicating proportionality of representation is necessarily a broad, general and logical principle, but not intended to be expressed with arithmetical precision. The principle of mathematical proportionality of representation is not a declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India. We do not propose to deal with the rival contentions on the above aspect in these writ appeals, in view of the finding that the final delimitation orders of the State Delimitation Commission are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The rival contentions on the above aspect are left open. Since the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the observations, if any, contained in the impugned judgments dated 07.10.2025 and 13.10.2025, on the merits of the case, will not stand in the way of the appellants raising such contentions before the appropriate forum.

32. The chronology of the main events with respect to the delimitation of constituencies would show that the constitution of 2025:KER:86401 139 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 the State Delimitation Commission was vide G.O.(P)No.36/2024/ LSGD dated 15.06.2024. After notifying the Kerala Municipality (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, on 10.07.2024, and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fixing of Strength) Amendment Rules, 2024, on 04.09.2024, the Government fixed the strength of seats in Grama/Block/District Panchayats, on 07.09.2024, which was followed by fixation of strength of seats in Municipalities/Municipal Corporations. The State Delimitation Commission issued guidelines on 24.09.2024. The State Delimitation Commission notified the draft proposal in respect of Grama Panchayats/ Municipalities/Municipal Corporations on 18.11.2024, and the last date for submission of objections and suggestions was 04.12.2024. District-wise hearing was conducted from 16.01.2025 to 22.02.2025 and 16.03.2025. The State Delimitation Commission issued the final delimitation orders in respect of 940 Grama Panchayats on 15.05.2025, which were notified in the Gazette on 19.05.2025. In respect of 6 Municipal Corporations and 86 Municipalities, the State Delimitation Commission issued the final delimitation orders on 28.05.2025. The submission made by 2025:KER:86401 140 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 the learned Standing Counsel for the State Delimitation Commission was that in the report submitted by the Delimitation Commission, the necessity to commence the process of delimitation well in advance has been pointed out. The submission of the learned Special Government Pleader was that the delay in the commencement of the delimitation process was due to various reasons, including Covid-19 pandemic.

33. We do not propose to consider the above aspect in these writ appeals. As pointed out by the Division Bench of the Panjab and Haryana High Court in Rajesh Kumar Sharma [2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7307], the elections are not merely rituals to be performed periodically. The elections are the only effective tool to ascertain the will of the people for genuine self-governance at the grassroot level, which is possible only through free and fair elections. The concept of free and fair elections includes the preliminary stages to the election, such as delimitation of constituencies and preparation or revision of electoral rolls. Therefore, the process of delimitation of constituencies will have to commence well in advance, to ensure a 'free and fair' election.

2025:KER:86401 141 W.A.Nos.2440, 2465, 2475, 2480, 2501, 2509, 2550, 2566, 2586, 2594, 2599 and 2614 of 2025 In the above circumstances, we find no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments dated 07.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 that the final delimitation orders of the State Delimitation Commission are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE AV/BKN/MINU

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court