Judicial review of electoral matters is restricted once the election process is initiated, as per constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.41889 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 11.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant, who is a resident and voter of the 6^th respondent Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath, being aggrieved by Ext.P1 notification dated 05.11.2025, reserving the post of President of the Grama Panchayath, for women, for the 3^rd consecutive time, approached this Court with W.P.(C) No.41889 of 2025, seeking the following reliefs;

“i. To declare that Exhibit P1 gazette notification to the extent the post of president of Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath is reserved for the 3^rd consecutive time is unconstitutional and against law and liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

ii. To set aside Ext P1 to the extent the post of president of Vijayapuram Grama panchayath is reserved for women.

iii. To direct the respondents to pass orders to the effect that the post of president of the 6th respondent grama panchayath is to be from the general category for the election of the year 2025 to maintain the rotation.”

3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on

11.11.2025, after hearing the appellant who appeared in person, 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 this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Noufal Babu E. K. and Others [2021 (3) KLJ 547], to find that the writ petition is not maintainable. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

4. Heard the appellant, who appeared in person, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Vijayapuram Grama Panchayath.

5. The grievance of the appellant is that the Office of the President of the Grama Panchayath was reserved for women candidates for successive terms. The appellant, during the course of arguments, submitted that, since the selection of the President will be done only after the declaration of results, even though the election was notified, this Court can interfere with Ext.P1 notification, without obstructing the election. On the other hand, by relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Noufal Babu E. K [2021 (3) KLJ 547] , the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission would submit that even the recasting of rotation to the post of Chairpersons/President of the local bodies is barred under Article 243-O (a) and 243-ZG(a) read with Clauses (b) thereto of the Constitution of India . 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 dates that were 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 appellant submitted that as far as the reservation to the post of President of the Grama Panchayat