Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Francis.A.P vs Kerala State Election Commission on 13 November, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025




                                     1
                                                      2025:KER:86549

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1947

                            WP(C) NO. 42523 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

              FRANCIS.A.P.
              AGED 57 YEARS
              S/O. PETER, ATHIPOZHIYIL HOUSE, ARATTUVAZHY,
              ALAPPUZHA NORTH.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -
              688007


              BY ADVS.
              SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
              SHRI.JOGGY MATHUNNI




RESPONDENT/S:

      1       KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
              JANAHITHAM TC 27/6(2), VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033

      2       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

      3       THE SECRETARY
              LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
              KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
 W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025




                                      2
                                                              2025:KER:86549


      4       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
              COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA
              DISTRICT, PIN - 688001


              BY ADV.
              SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
              COMMISSION, KERALA
              SPL GP, SMT. DEEPA K R

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   13.11.2025,        THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025




                                     3
                                                            2025:KER:86549



                          P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   ---------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025
               ------------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 13th day of November, 2025.


                                 JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext P4 to the extent it reserves the Office of Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality, for women candidates;
ii) declare that the 1st respondent cannot reserve the office of the chairperson of a municipality, for successive terms;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to pass orders re-notifying the office of the Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality for general category;
iv) exempt the petitioner from producing the English translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this Writ Petition and the petitioner further undertake that he is ready and willing to produce English translation of Malayalam documents as and when required;
v) award costs to the petitioner;
vi) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to set aside W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025 4 2025:KER:86549 Ext.P4 to the extent it reserves the Office of Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality for women candidates and to declare that the 1st respondent cannot reserve the office of the chairperson of a municipality, for successive terms. There is a further prayer to issue a mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to pass orders re-notifying the office of the Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality for general category.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission and the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. A preliminary objection is raised by the Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission stating that this Court cannot entertain the prayers in this Writ Petition in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Noufal Babu E.K. and Others [2020 KHC 5613]. It is submitted that the general election for the year 2025 has already been declared. I will consider that point first.

W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025

5

2025:KER:86549

5. Admittedly, the State Election Commission declared the general election to the local bodies for the year 2025 on 10.11.2025. The election is scheduled to be conducted on 09.12.2025 and 11.12.2025. Whether this Court can interfere in such situation is the question to be decided. In Noufal Babu's case (supra), this Court considered the matter in detail. To know the facts of the case, I will extract paragraph No.1 and to know the dictum laid down in the judgment, I will extract paragraph No.70 of the above judgment:

"1. The writ appeals are filed by the State and its officials, and the Kerala State Election Commission as captioned above, challenging the judgments dated 16-11- 2020, 19.11.2020 and 20.11.2020 rendered by the learned single Judge in various writ petitions, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the Kerala State Election Commission to recast the reservation by rotation to the office of the President and Chairpersons of the local bodies in question, pursuant to the notifications issued by the State Election Commission dated 03.11.2020 in that regard, which is a process of the General Elections notified by the State Election Commission. Though one of the writ petitions was filed earlier to the notification issued by the State Election Commission and the other writ petitions were filed on 06.11.2020 i.e., the date of the announcement of W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025 6 2025:KER:86549 elections by the State Election Commission, the judgment was passed on 16.11.2020 after the notification of election issued by the State Government on 12.11.2020.
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 Art.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."

6. Admittedly, the above judgment was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed SLP Nos.15998 & 15999/2020. In the light of the same, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot entertain the W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025 7 2025:KER:86549 prayers in this Writ Petition.

7. Counsel for the petitioner wants to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which is produced as Ext.P3 in this Writ Petition. The counsel takes me through paragraph No.14 of Ext.P2 judgment and thereafter paragraph No.72 of Ext.P3 judgment. It is submitted that the reservation to the post of Chairperson will not come within the bar as contented by the Election Commission. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Goa and Another v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh and Another [2021 KHC OnLine 6161]. The counsel relied on direction Nos. I & V in paragraph No.63 of the above judgment. But the Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission relied on the last sentence in direction No.I in paragraph No.63 of the above judgment. The Apex Court observed that, whether to interfere in a situation, when the election process is "imminent" is a discretion of the court. In this case, admittedly, the election is declared. The election notification will come on 14.11.2025. In such W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025 8 2025:KER:86549 circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. There is no merit in this Writ Petition.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-


                                           P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
                                                 JUDGE
DM

Judgment reserved            NA
Date of Judgment          13.11.2025
Judgment dictated         13.11.2025
Draft Judgment placed     13.11.2025
Final Judgment uploaded   13.11.2025
 W.P.(C) No. 42523 of 2025




                                     9
                                                       2025:KER:86549


                        APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42523/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1                  A   TRUE   COPY    OF   THE   NOTIFICATION
                            NO.274/2020/S.E.C.     DATED    03.11.2020
                            ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2                  A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

16.11.2020 IN W.P.(C).NO.24064/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2020 IN W.A.NO.1538/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.64/2025/S.E.C DATED 05.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT