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) 51712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
AYSHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34433 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH, SHRI.RENOY VINCENT, SHRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI, SHRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY, SHRI.ABEE SHEJIRIK, FASLA N.K, SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN, SHRI.SAHAL SHAJAHAN, SHRI.AQUIN KURUVILLA, TOM, SHRI.M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, SHRI.JITHIN ALEXANDER SUNNY, SMT.NAFIYA SHAHALA, C.K.
For the Respondents: SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE DELIMITATION COMMISSION, SHRI.M.SASINDRAN

Delimitation Commission may rectify inadvertent errors under Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; legal boundaries determined by the Commission are binding.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Section 10 and 11 - Writ Petition filed for inclusion in voter list and addressing delimitation errors - The petitioner seeks to include their name in the voter list denying their right to vote; challenges inclusion in Ward 18 instead of Ward 19. The Court finds that the Delimitation Commission's corrections were justified as inadvertent errors under Section 11. (Paras 2-6)

(B) Election process - Local body elections - The importance of timely completion prevents court intervention at this stage, leading to dismissal of the writ. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner outlined grievances on wrongful exclusion from the voter list and unwarranted delineation denying voting rights as permanent residents of their designated ward, contrary to established delimitation processes.

Findings of Court:
Court upheld that electoral boundaries as prescribed by the Delimitation Commission must be obeyed while deeming corrections within their statutory rights as an inadvertent slip.

Issues: Whether the exclusion from voter list and deliberations regarding ward boundaries are lawful in light of existing laws?

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Delimitation Commission may rectify inadvertent errors, stating that elections must proceed without issue.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks inclusion in voter list after being excluded. (Para 1 , 2)
2. delimitation commission's authority to correct errors affirmed. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court prohibits interference with election processes. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondent No.5, Electoral Registration Officer, to include the name of the Petitioner and other similarly aggrieved voters in the final voter list of Ward No.19 so as to safeguard their valuable right to vote in the impending elections;

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No.5, Electoral Registration Officer, to forthwith consider and pass orders on the Exhibit P7 application dated 15.09.2025 submitted by the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 25 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994 within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No.5, Electoral Registration Officer to implement the decisions taken on Exhibit P7 application dated 15.09.2025 and accordingly correct and revise the final voter list of the Ward No. 19 of the Respondent No.6 Pallikkara Grama Panchayat.

iv. Declare that the alteration of the delimitation map of Ward No.19, as published on the official website of the Respondent No.3 Delimitation Commission subsequent to the Exhibit P2 Final Delimitation Notification dated 15.05.2025, and not in accordance with the boundaries finalized under the said Notification, is illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , and without authority of law;

v. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No.3 Delimitation Commission to retain and enforce the boundaries of Ward No.19 strictly in accordance with the Exhibit P2 Final Delimitation Notification dated 15.05.2025, without any alteration or substitution in violation to procedure established by law;

vi. To dispense off with translation of vernacular documents to English;

vii. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice;”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the wrongful exclusion from the Final Voter List of Ward No.19 (Keekan) of the 6th respondent, Pallikkara Grama Panchayat, despite being permanent residents within its territorial limits as demarcated by Ext. P2 Final Delimitation Notification dated 15.05.2025 and Ext. P3 map published by the 3rd respondent Delimitation Commission in its official website. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent Delimitation Commission, exercising powers under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , had conclusively fixed the boundaries of Ward No.19 vide Ext.P2 final delimitation notification. However, in the draft voter list as well as in the final voter list published by the 2nd respondent, the names of the petitioner herein and several other similarly aggrieved voters, though falling squarely within Ward No.19 as per Ext.P2 final delimitation notification and Ext.P3 map, were arbitrarily marked as voters of Ward No.18, thereby disenfranchising them from their own ward. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 5 and the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that, when the Delimitation Commission issued the final notification and the digital map, it cannot be changed. The Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commissi

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