Judicial review of delimitation orders is barred under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution, emphasizing the finality and integrity of electoral processes.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

This batch of writ petitions lays a challenge to the final delimitation orders issued in respect of the Grama Panchayats, Block Panchayats, Municipalities, and Municipal Corporations in the State. As the questions of law raised in the cases are substantially identical, the writ petitions were jointly heard and are being decided by this common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 19182 of 2025 is treated as the lead case for reference.

2. PETITIONER'S CASE IN W.P.(C) No.19182 of 2025: The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order and Ext.P9 final delimitation order passed by the Delimitation Commission. The writ petitioner was a Ward Member of Vanimel Grama Panchayat ('Panchayat', for brevity) for two terms. On 24.09.2024, as per the procedure set-forth under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, r/w Rule 10 of the Delimitation Commission for the Kerala Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 2005, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P1 guidelines to carry out the delimitation process for the Local Self Governments in the State of Kerala. Accordingly, the Panchayat had issued Ext.P2 draft delimitation report, based on which the 4th respondent published Ext.P3 proposal and Ext.P3(a) map of the proposed delimitation of the constituencies in the Panchayat. Upon reviewing the proposal and the map, the petitioner identified patent irregularities and manifest arbitrariness in the demarcation of the boundaries of constituencies 1 and 8. Another voter found irregularities regarding constituency No.9. The proposal and the map were intentionally made to give undue advantage to certain political parties. The boundaries have been demarcated overlooking Ext.P1 guidelines. Consequently, the petitioner and another voter submitted Exts.P4 and P6 objections to the proposal and the map. In light of the objections, the office of the District Election Officer conducted a local investigation and submitted Ext.P7 report to the 4th respondent, endorsing that the objections were correct. In the personal hearing, the petitioner reiterated his objections. However, overlooking the objections and Ext.P7 report, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P8 order, without making any amendments to Ext.P3 notification and Ext.P3(a) map, and directed the 6th respondent to file the final report along with the appendices. Accordingly, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order. Ext.P9 order is cryptic, non-speaking and illegal. Ext.P9 order can only be considered as a 'deemed law' and not a law made by the Legislature. Therefore, the embargo under Article 243-O (a) of the Constitution of India is not applicable. If judicial intervention is barred, the petitioner would be left without a remedy. In Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. Secretary, Governor's Secretariat & others, [2019 KHC 7239], the Supreme Court has held that there is no bar for a constitutional court to intervene in matters that facilitate elections or when a case of mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power is established. Hence, Exts.P8 and P9 orders may be quashed.

3. THE GIST OF THE CHALLENGE IN CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS: The following writ petitions are filed echoing similar grievances as in W.P. (C) No.19182 of 2025, that the procedure leading to final delimitation orders was neither fair nor transparent, the objections raised by the petitioners were ignored without assigning any reason, there was deliberate gerrymandering, misallocation of house numbers, arbitrary fixation of ward boundaries and the petitioners were not heard, etc. Thus, the final delimitation orders are illegal and arbitrary, and are liable to be quashed. The crux of the challenge in the writ petitions is as follows:

3.1. W.P(C)No.19332/2025: The petitioners are the residents of Ward No.14 of Naduvil Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). Pursuant to the amendment of Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj, 1994, the Delimitation Commission, Kerala, has issued guidelines under Section 10 of the Act for dividing th