M.T. Johny vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.T. Johny vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.39600 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 of Vannapuram Grama Panchayat in Idukki District, filed W.P.(C)No.39600 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 guidelines dated 24.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Kerala State Election Commission to the extent it is silent about the status of new wards with 100% population/voters from existing reservation wards, ignoring the mandate of Articles 14 , 243D , 243T of the Constitution of India, Sections 7 and 9 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and Section 6 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 performa-I showing the percentage of population and the status of reservation during the years 2015 and 2020, prepared by the 4th respondent Secretary of Idukki District Panchayat and Ext.P4 order dated 4 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 21.10.2025 of the 3rd respondent District Collector, who is an officer authorised by the 2nd respondent Kerala State Election Commission, for fixing the reservation wards under Section 10(2A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in Idukki District Panchayat, for the general elections scheduled to be held in the year 2025; a declaration that ward 14-Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat shall be a general constituency for the ensuing 2025 general elections; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent District Collector to re-fix the women reservation wards in Idukki District Panchayat after excluding ward 14- Vannapuram, as the same was successively reserved during the elections held on 2015 and 2020 and 100% population/voters are from women reservation ward during 2020.

3. In the writ petition, on behalf of the 2nd respondent Kerala State Election Commission, a statement dated 29.10.2025 has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel, producing therewith Annexure R2(a) report dated nil submitted by the 4 th respondent Secretary of Idukki District Panchayat before the 2 nd respondent Kerala State Election Commission, regarding the details of percentage of population included in the newly 5 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 constituted ward 14-Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat.

4. On 31.10.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge admitted the matter on file. The learned Special Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 3, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Election Commission for the 2nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Idukki District Panchayat for respondents 4 and 5. The learned Single Judge passed an interim order to the effect that the election to be conducted in ward 14-Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat will be subject to the result of the writ petition.

5. Challenging the interim order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed W.A.No.2626 of 2025. By the judgment dated 03.11.2025, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal by setting aside the interim order dated 31.10.2025, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides and without prejudice to their right to raise appropriate contentions before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.

6. Thereafter, though the writ petition came up before the 6 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge expressed his inability to take up the matter for final hearing on account of the heavy listing of admissions and petitions. Then the matter was finally taken up for consideration on 10.11.2025. By that time, the schedule of dates for the election process was announced by the election commission, proposing to issue the election notification on 14.11.2025. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, by the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India [1982 KLT Online 1043] and Election Commission v. Ashok Kumar [2000(3) KLT 402], leaving open the contentions of the appellant Being aggrieved the appellant-writ petitioner is now before us with the present writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Idukki District Panchayat.

8. The grievance of the appellant is that the new Vannapuram 7 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 division was formed, taking 39.45% population of the old Karimannor division and 49.19% population of the Mullaringadu division, which were reserved for women in the 2020 election and were reserved for SC/ST during the 2015 election. Thus, according to the appellant, the new Vannapuram division has been consecutively reserved during the 2015 and 2020 elections. When Ext.P2 guidelines issued by the State Election Commission provide that when a new ward is formed by including more than 50% of the population of the existing ward, the new ward shall be treated as a ward under reservation existed during the previous elections, and Ext.P2 guidelines are silent about the procedure to be followed in such cases. The election commission took the new Ward as an unreserved one in the previous election, by misinterpreting Ext.P2 guidelines. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar [2000(3) KLT 402], the learned counsel submitted that even after the notification of the election, judicial intervention is possible, without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission produced a copy of the gazette 8 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 notification dated 14.11.2025, whereby the elections to the Local Self-Government Institutions were notified to be held in Kerala on 09.12.2025 and 11.12.2025. By pointing out the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [2021 (8) SCC 401], the learned Standing Counsel argued that it is not possible for a constitutional Court to interfere with the election process after the declaration of the election. The learned Special Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat supported the aforesaid argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.

10. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the issue of maintainability since the dates of election were scheduled to be notified by the Government. Though at the time of passing the impugned judgment, only the date of notification of the election was scheduled, now at the time of hearing this appeal, the election notification itself is published by the Government. In Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [2021 (8) SCC 401] at paragraph 63, the Apex Court held thus:

"63. A conspectus of the aforesaid judgments in the context of municipal elections would yield the following results.

WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 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 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 10 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 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 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 11 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 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 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 12 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 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)

11. It is true that in Ashok Kumar [2000(3) KLT 402] the Apex Court held that without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of 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 the stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. But as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, in the instant case, since the prayer of the appellant is against Ext.P2 guidelines and the consequential orders, the interference of which would definitely interrupt, obstruct or delay the progress of the election proceedings.

12. Having considered the pleadings and materials on 13 WA No.2707 of 2025 2025:KER:88987 record and the submissions made at the Bar, especially the publication of the election notification, in the light of the judgments in Ashok Kumar [2000(3) KLT 402] and Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [2021 (8) SCC 401] we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this Court.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                              MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court