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) 52263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
THOTTATHIL SREEDEVI AMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43993 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.M.GEORGE, CHITHRA P.GEORGE, MATHEWS P.GEORGE
For the Respondents: DEEPA K.R, SRI. DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SMT. SHAMEENA SALAHUDEEN

The court cannot interfere with the electoral roll process at a late stage before the elections.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the exclusion of the petitioners' names from the voters list based on Section 77(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act. The petitioners claim that they are ordinarily residents and possess voting rights. The court, however, finds it unable to interfere with the electoral roll at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eligibility for voting is questioned due to exclusion from voter list. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments were presented on behalf of the petitioners. (Para 4)
3. court unable to intervene with the electoral roll at the current stage. (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P10 issued by the 3rd Respondent and Exhibit P12 issued by the 5th Respondent and quash the same;

ii). Declare that the Petitioners are “ordinarily resident” of Ward No. 32 of Cherpulassery Municipality within the meaning of Section 77 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act , iii).Direct the respondents to forthwith include the names of the petitioners in the Final Voters List of Ward No. 32 of Cherpulassery Municipality;

iv).Dispense with the filing of the English translation of vernacular documents produced along with this writ petition.

v). Grant such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The short point raised by the petitioners is that, their names were excluded from the final voters list. Even though an appeal is filed, the same was also rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner is 81 years old, and all the petitioners possess voting rights, and they cast their votes in the earlier elections. It is also submitted that they are not contesting this election and they only want the right to vote.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also the learned Special Government Pleader.

5. It is an admitted fact that the election 2025 to the local bodies is already notified. Today is the last date for submitting nomination and it will end at 3pm today and now it is 2:40pm. From

3pm onwards the electoral roll will be freezed.

6. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to interfere with the electoral roll at this belated stage. But the contention raised by the petitioners are left open.

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

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