SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL AZEEZ – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41707 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.E.SAJAL, SHRI.MUHAMMED HISHAM T., SMT.FATHIMA RINSHA T.P.
For the Respondents: SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA

Elections cannot be interfered with after notification, holding that petitions may be barred under constitutional provisions.

Headnote:This writ petition concerns the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the Kerala State Election Commission regarding the reservation of the office of President of a Panchayat in accordance with relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Constitution of India. The main petitioner's plea challenges the gazette notification affecting the local body elections. On reviewing the pertinent statutory provisions and established jurisprudence, it was concluded that the court cannot entertain interference in the electoral process at this stage. The petition ultimately lacks merit and is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, or direction ,to the 1st & 2nd respondents to set aside Ext.P1, the gazette notification to the extent of 3rd respondent Munniyoor Grama Panchayat 2025 General Panchayat Election;

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, or direction ,to the 1st respondent to re-notify the reservation of the office of President of 3rd respondent Munniyoor Grama Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of Section 153 (4) (d) & (f) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, and Article 243D(4) of the Constitution of India, ensuring rotation and proportional representation;

iii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv. To dispense with the filling of translation of vernacular documents.

(SIC)

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to set aside Ext.P1, the gazette notification to the extent of 3rd respondent Munniyoor Grama Panchayat and to re-notify the reservation of the office of President of 3rd respondent Munniyoor Grama Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act .

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission.

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 (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that the issues raised by the petitioners are clearly barred under Art.243 - O(a) and 243 - ZG(a) r/w clauses (b) thereto of the Constitution of India. We also find that the learned single Judge having found that there is no illegality on the part of the State Election Commission to reserve the offices in a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top