Following the coming into force of the Constitution (73rd amendment) Act 1992 which received assent of the president and was published in the Gazette of India dated 20/04/1993, whereby part IX relating to the panchayats, as if now stands, was inserted in the Constitution of India, Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994, hereinafter referred to as the “Act” was passed which provides, interalia, in Section 38 thereof, for notification for general election to Panchayats. On 29/08/2005, the Government of Kerala, in exercise of such authority, on the recommendation by the state Election Commission. Notified the election to the Panchayats.

2. Before that, the Electoral Roll for the constituencies in Nadapuram Grama panchayat was published, in draft, in terms of Rule 8 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules 1994, hereinafter referred to as the “Registration Rules”, on 15/06/2005 and the Electoral Roll (final) was published on 19/08/2005. It is the assertion of the State Election commission that no complaints, whatsoever were received by the Electoral Registration officers regarding non-inclusion of 69 permanent residents from ward no.2 of the Nadapuram Grama panchayat in the electoral roll and that no mass non-inclusion of names has come to the notice of the authorities after the publication of the electoral roll. All persons, who had filed statutory objections under the Registration Rules were included in the voters list after necessary enquiry. According to the Commission, on names were included in the electoral role and no names were deleted after 6/9/2005. It is so stated in Annexure A communication addressed by the Kerala Electoral Registration officer of Nadapuram Grama panchayat, which is appended to the statement filed on behalf of the State Election commission on 22/09/2005.

3. The plea of the writ petitioners is that the first among them is a candidate for the aforesaid election and the second one is a local resident and a voter, whose name, though included in the latest voters list for the election to the Legislative assembly, is not included in the voters list for the election to the panchayats.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the primary contention raised in this writ petition is that any embargo created by Article 243 Others(b) of the Constitution of India is unconstitutional in so far as it excludes judicial review under Article 226 of the constitution of India, even as regards the non-inclusion or exclusion of eligible voters.

5. After the 73rd amendment of the Constitution, the panchayat is a constitutional institution and a survey of the historical reasons for providing such an amendment to the Constitution would show that that the paramount consideration was to ensure that the Local Self-Government Institutions sustain as edifices of the democratic process and that the duration of such institutions are constitutionally provided including by ensuring their constitution or re-constitution before the expiry of the duration specified by the Constitution itself. A reference to Article 243E of the Constitution would show that one of the paramount constitutional goals sought to be achieved by the 73rd amendment is that consistency, in so far as the periodicity of the term of a Panchayat is concerned, is constitutionally secured. I refer to this provision to remind myself of not only the constitutional requirements, but also the fundamental need envisaged by the 73rd amendment to ensure that the elections to Panchayats do not depend upon the will of the State Governments, by treating the Panchayats as mere statutory bodies as they were before the 73rd amendment to the Constitution. Similar are the vibrant provisions that relate to the Municipalities in Part IXA of the Constitution, as inserted by the Constitution (74th Amendment Act, 1992).

6. In the above backdrop, a reference to the Registration Rules would show that a fair procedure has been evolved by providing subordinate legislation (Rules