B. Unnikrishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

B. Unnikrishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.41889 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 11.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant, who is a resident and voter of the 6th respondent Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath, being aggrieved by Ext.P1 notification dated 05.11.2025, reserving the post of President of the Grama Panchayath, for women, for the 3 rd consecutive time, approached this Court with W.P.(C) No.41889 of 2025, seeking the following reliefs;

"i. To declare that Exhibit P1 gazette notification to the extent the post of president of Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath is reserved for the 3rd consecutive time is unconstitutional and against law and liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.

ii. To set aside Ext P1 to the extent the post of president of Vijayapuram Grama panchayath is reserved for women. iii. To direct the respondents to pass orders to the effect that the post of president of the 6th respondent grama panchayath is to be from the general category for the election of the year 2025 to maintain the rotation."

W.A.No.2722 of 2025 4

2025:KER:88889

3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 11.11.2025, after hearing the appellant who appeared in person, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission and the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the finding of maintainability, since the election schedule was already notified by the Government. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Noufal Babu E. K. and Others [2021 (3) KLJ 547], to find that the writ petition is not maintainable. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

4. Heard the appellant, who appeared in person, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath.

5. The grievance of the appellant is that the Office of the President of the Grama Panchayath was reserved for women candidates for successive terms. The appellant, during the course of arguments, submitted that, since the selection of the President will be done only after the declaration of results, even though the W.A.No.2722 of 2025 5 2025:KER:88889 election was notified, this Court can interfere with Ext.P1 notification, without obstructing the election. On the other hand, by relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Noufal Babu E. K [2021 (3) KLJ 547], the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission would submit that even the recasting of rotation to the post of Chairpersons/President of the local bodies is barred under Article 243-O(a) and 243-ZG(a) read with Clauses (b) thereto of the Constitution of India. The learned Standing Counsel invited our attention to the notification dated 14.11.2025 issued by the Government, notifying the election to the Local Self-Government institutions in Kerala to be held on 09.12.2025 and 11.12.2025, and submitted that though at the time of passing the impugned judgment, it was only the dates that were announced, now the election itself is notified by the Government.

6. We have carefully verified the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and also appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. At the time of dismissal of the writ petition, the election schedule was only announced by the Government. But at present, the election was notified as per the W.A.No.2722 of 2025 6 2025:KER:88889 Gazette Notification dated 14.11.2025. Though the appellant submitted that as far as the reservation to the post of President of the Grama Panchayat is concerned, even after the notification of election, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ court can interfere, the judgment in Noufal Babu E. K [2021 (3) KLJ 547] is against the aforesaid submission. Paragraph 70 of that judgment read thus;

"70. Bearing in mind the provisions of the Constitution of India and the relevant statutes and so also the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments as well as in N.P. Ponnuswami and Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that the issues raised by the petitioners are clearly barred under Article 243 - O(a) and 243 - ZG(a) r/w clauses (b) thereto of the Constitution of India. We also find that the learned single Judge having found that there is no illegality on the part of the State Election Commission to reserve the offices in accordance with the provisions of the statutes, according to us, was not right in interfering with the electoral process, especially when the directions issued by the learned single Judge to recast the rotation to the post of Chairpersons/ President of the local bodies is a complex and complicated procedure dependent on various factors in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution as discussed above and the provisions of the statutes in question."

(Underline supplied) W.A.No.2722 of 2025 7 2025:KER:88889

7. In State of Goa and Another v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh and Another [(2021) 8 SCC 401], the Apex Court held thus;

"63. A conspectus of the aforesaid judgments in the context of municipal elections would yield the following results. I. 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 243ZG debarring the writ court under Article 226 and Article 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".

II. 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.

III. The non-obstante clause contained in Article 243ZG does not operate as a bar after the election tribunal decides an election dispute before it. Thus, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and Article 227 and that of W.A.No.2722 of 2025 8 2025:KER:88889 the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not affected as the non-obstante clause in Article 243ZG operates only during the process of election. IV. Under Article 243ZA(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 243ZA(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 upto 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. V. 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 commences or after such process is completed W.A.No.2722 of 2025 9 2025:KER:88889 unless interfering with such order subserves and facilitates the progress of the election.

VI. Article 243ZA(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 243T, which deals with reservation of seats.

VII. The bar contained in Article 243ZG(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 243ZA. This is by virtue of the non-obstante clause contained in Article 243ZG. 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 concerned statute does not give such orders the status of a statutory provision.

VIII. 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.

IX. The constitutional bar of Article 243ZG(a) applies only to courts and not the State Election Commission, which is W.A.No.2722 of 2025 10 2025:KER:88889 to supervise, direct and control preparation of electoral rolls and conduct elections to municipalities. X. 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 (IV) 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". (Underline supplied)

8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the judgments referred to supra, we find no ground to hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is suffering from any illegality or impropriety which warrants the interference of this Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MSA

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court