IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to increase the number of seats in Panchayats is valid and does not violate constitutional provisions regarding population ratios or legislative competence.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.38014/2024, 38651/2024, 40036/2024, 46567/2024]

In all these cases, the main challenge raised is against the amendment brought by the Government to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as per Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act, 15 of 2024). The notification issued in this regard is produced as Ext.P7 in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024. (For convenience W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 is treated as the leading case and the parties to the litigation and the exhibits produced are hereinafter referred to as per their respective ranks and sequences as mentioned in the said writ petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned).

2. The basic issue involved in all these cases is with regard to the competence of the Government to bring in an amendment as referred to above to Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , by which the minimum and maximum number of seats in a Panchayat to which members are to be directly elected, are increased. To be precise, as per the amended provisions, the minimum number of seats is increased to 14 from 13 and the maximum number is increased to 24 from 23.

3. In W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024 the petitioners therein are concerned with the delimitation process now in progress in Olavanna Grama Panchayath in Kozhikode district. According to them, the said Panchayat is one of the most populous Panchayats in the State of Kerala with a total population 68,432 as per the census conducted in the year 2011. Earlier, taking note of the population in the Panchayat and various other aspects, the Government issued Ext.P1 notification dated 25.4.2015 by which it was decided to bifurcate several Panchayats by creating new Panchayats and the Olavanna Panchayat was one among the same. The decision was to divide Olavanna Panchayat by creating a new Panchayat named, Pantheerankavu. Consequent to Ext.P1 notification, the 3rd respondent Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P2 and P3 final orders fixing the wards within the said Panchayats. The Ext.P1 notification was challenged by various persons before this Court mainly on the reason that new Panchayats were created by carving out certain portions of the existing villages without notifying those portions as new villages as envisaged under Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India. The said challenges were answered by this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment, wherein, Ext.P1 was quashed for want of prior notification by the Governor as contemplated under Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India. After the said judgment, the Government issued SRO.No.138/2020 dated 12.02.2020 stating that as the Government cannot afford the expenditure in connection with the creation of new Panchayats, it was decided not to proceed further with the proposal to divide and create the Panchayats.

4. Now the Government has come up with Ext.P7 notification by which the amendment was carried out in Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , increasing the minimum and maximum number of seats. On the basis of Ext.P7, corresponding amendment was also made in Rule 3 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fixing of Strength) Amendment Rules 2024. A copy of the said notification is produced as Ext.P8. On the basis of the same, Ext.P9 notification was also published by the Government increasing the number of the wards in all the Grama Panchayats. The above amendments and the consequential notifications are under challenge in this writ petition.

5. W.P(C) No.46567 of 2024 concerns with the delimitation process in Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat in Thiruvananthapuram District, which was also included in Ext.P1 notification by which the said Panchayat was divided into two namely, Kadinamkulam Grama Panchayat and Perumathura Grama Panchayat. The contentions raised in this writ petition are also similar to the contentions raised in W.P.C.No.38014 of 2024. However, in addition to the above, it is also contended that, as far as the petitioners are concerned, who are the residents of Peruma