Judicial interference in municipal elections is restricted once the election process has begun, per constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.42523 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant, who is a social worker and a resident of Arattuvazhy ward of Alappuzha Municipality, approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.42523 of 2025 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”

3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on

13.11.2025, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission and the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the finding of maintainability, since the election schedule was already notified by the Government. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Goa and Another v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh and Another [(2021) 8 SCC 401], to find that the writ petition is not maintainable. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission and the learned Special Government Pleader.

5. The grievance of the appellant is that the Office of the Chairperson of Alappuzha Municipality was reserved for women candidates for successive terms. According to the learned counsel, since the selection of the Chairperson will be done only after the declaration of results, even though the election was notified, this Court can interfere with Ext.P4 notification, without obstructing the election. On the other hand, by relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Noufal Babu E. K. and Others [2021 (3) KLJ 547], the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission would submit that even the recasting of rotation to the post of Chairpersons/President of the local bodies are barred under Article

243-O (a) and 243-ZG(a), read with Clauses (b) thereto of the Constitution of India , once election is notified. The learned Standing Counsel invited our attention to the notification dated 14.11.2025 issued by the Government, notifying the election to the Local Self-Government institutions in Kerala to be held on 09.12.2025 and 11.12.2025, and submitted that though at the time of passing the impugned judgment, it was only the schedule of dates that was announced, now the election itself is notified by the Government.

6. We have carefully verified the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and also appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. At the time of dismissal of the writ petition, the election schedule was only announced by the Government. But at present, the election was notified as per the Gazette Notification dated 14.11.2025. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as far as the reservation to the post of Chairperson of a Municipality is concerned, even after the notification of election, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , a writ court can interfere, the judgment inNoufal Babu E. K [2021 (3) KLJ 547] is against the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel.

Paragraph 70 of that judgment