Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
GIGI PALLIPPANATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 9867/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ANOOP V.NAIR, TANOOSHA PAUL
For the Respondents: SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, ANIL K.MUHAMED, SMT.AMMINIKUTTY.K, ADV.DEEPA K.R.
The court affirmed that delimitation must be based on the last census population data, not the voters' list.
Headnote:{ "statute_analysis": "Relevant statutory provisions include Article 243C of the Constitution of India and Section 6(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994.", "facts": "The petitioner contends that the delimitation process for Ward No. 18 of the 6th respondent panchayat has not followed legal frameworks, seeking multiple writs to rectify the process, especially to consider the current voters' list and population data.", "findings": "The court ruled that the voters' list cannot be used for delimitation, emphasizing that population ascertained from the last census is the definitive basis for such processes.", "issues": "The court addressed whether the voters' list can be the basis for delimitation as posed by the petitioner.", "ratio_decidendi": "The court determined that delimitation must align with established definitions of population and informed statutory mandates, rendering the petitioner's claims unsubstantiated due to incorrect assumptions regarding eligibility of the voters' list.", "result": "Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of."}
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing P4 notification &
P9 guidelines, to the extent that it carries out delimitation of ward no.18 in the 6th respondent panchayat illegally and declare that it is unconstitutional and declare that the delimitation is to be carried out based on latest voters list in the concerned areas.
II. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing notification &
guidelines to the extent that it carries out delimitation of ward no.18 in the 6th respondent panchayath illegally and declare that it is unconstitutional and declare that the delimitation is to be carried out based on latest voters list in the concerned areas and not as done now.
III. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P5 to P8 notifications by declaring that it is ultravirus to
IV. To issue a writ of mandamus order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 5 to undertake the division to 6th respondent panchayath, after taking the relevant population into consideration based on voters list and not on the basis of building numbers or flat numbers and not on the basis of average person’s residing in buildings/houses or flats.
V. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 5 to carry out delimitation in ward no.18 of the 6th respondent Panchayath only after considering Exhibits P10, P10 (a) P10(b) and P1.
VI. to issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honorable Court deems fit to grant to the facts and circumstances of the case.
VII. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the officer of delimitation,district collector- Ernakulam district and chairman of delimitation commission to dispose of Exhibits P10, 10 (a) and 10(b) in accordance with law before finalising delimitation processes and only then finalise the delimitation process with due consideration of P10, P10 (a), P10(b) and P1.
VIII. To declare that the guidelines under Exhibit P9 is unconstitutional and illegal and the delimitation process undergone as per the guidelines of P9 also is not in accordance with law and it is unconstitutional and there may be a further direction be issued to respondent 1 to 5 to frame new guidelines in accordance with law as per the proper procedures of delimitation based on voters list and 2011 census, including the re-conduct of hearing of objections from the persons concerned including the objections in P10, P10 (a) and P10(b) and complete the process in accordance with law.”
As far as the said reliefs are concerned, this Court has already considered the similar matters, wherein reliefs are arisen, and in W.P(C) No.42624/2024 the following observations made in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7:
“5. As far as the voter’s list is concerned, the same cannot be the basis of the delimitation process. Section 6 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Municipality Act specifically contemplates for carrying out delimitation, based on the population of the territorial area of the Panchayats/Municipalities concerned. The expression “population” is defined under Art.243p(g) as “ “population” means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published.” Therefore, what is relevant for the delimitation process is the population as defined under Art. 243 p(g) of The Constitution of India , which is based on the figures published in the preceding census and therefore under no circumstances, the voters list can be the basis for delimitation process. Thus, for that reason, the reliefs sought by the petitioners are to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly.
6. Apart from the above, the petitioners have pointed out certain other defects in carrying out the delimitatio
