Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: election process in M.T. Johny vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025Matching Fragments
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 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.
9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission produced a copy of the gazette 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.
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 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.
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.