Court can't interfere in electoral processes once elections are declared, per Articles 243-O and 243-ZG.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext P4 to the extent it reserves the Office of Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality, for women candidates;

ii) declare that the 1^st respondent cannot reserve the office of the chairperson of a municipality, for successive terms;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to pass orders re-notifying the office of the Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality for general category;

iv) exempt the petitioner from producing the English translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this Writ Petition and the petitioner further undertake that he is ready and willing to produce English translation of Malayalam documents as and when required;

v) award costs to the petitioner;

vi) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to set aside Ext.P4 to the extent it reserves the Office of Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality for women candidates and to declare that the 1^st respondent cannot reserve the o chairperson of a municipality, for successive terms. There is a further prayer to issue a mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to pass orders re-notifying the office of the Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality for general category.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission and the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. A preliminary objection is raised by the Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission stating that this Court cannot entertain the prayers in this Writ Petition in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Noufal Babu E.K. and Others [2020 KHC 5613]. It is submitted that the general election for the year 2025 has already been declared. I will consider that point first.

5. Admittedly, the State Election Commission declared the general election to the local bodies for the year 2025 on 10.11.2025. The election is scheduled to be conducted on 09.12.2025 and 11.12.2025. Whether this Court can interfere in such situation is the question to be decided. In Noufal Babu’s case (supra), this Court considered the matter in detail. To know the facts of the case, I will extract paragraph No.1 and to know the dictum laid down in the judgment, I will extract paragraph No.70 of the above judgment:

“1. The writ appeals are filed by the State and its officials, and the Kerala State Election Commission as captioned above, challenging the judgments dated 16-11- 2020, 19.11.2020 and 20.11.2020 rendered by the learned single Judge in various writ petitions, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the Kerala State Election Commission to recast the reservation by rotation to the office of the President and Chairpersons of the local bodies in question, pursuant to the notifications issued by the State Election Commission dated 03.11.2020 in that regard, which is a process of the General Elections notified by the State Election Commission. Though one of the writ petitions was filed earlier to the notification issued by the State Election Commission and the other writ petitions were filed on 06.11.2020 i.e., the date of the announcement of elections by the State Election Commission, the judgment was passed on 16.11.2020 after the notification of election issued by the State Government on 12.11.2020.

70. Bearing in mind the provisions of the Constitution of India and the relevant statutes and so also the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments as well as in N.P. Ponnuswami and Mohinder Singh Gill