Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
SALUDEEN – Appellant
Versus
THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER – Respondent
WA NO. 2978 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO.43145 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ATHUL KRISHNA A., SHRI.GOKUL DEVIS
For the Respondents: SMT. K.R. DEEPA, SRI. DEEPULAL MOHAN
The court upheld the limitation on including names in the electoral roll post-nomination deadlines under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, emphasizing procedural compliance.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The appellant challenged the dismissal of the writ petition seeking inclusion of his name in the electoral roll, citing violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Facts: The appellant, a senior citizen residing in Thattamangalam, filed the writ petition alleging that despite providing documentary proof of residency, his name was not included in the electoral roll.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating the jurisdictional limits of the Election Commission post-nomination deadline.
Issues: The court framed the main issues surrounding the denial of the right to vote due to procedural lapses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the procedural requirements stated in Section 24(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, asserting the limit of judicial intervention post-nomination deadlines.
Result: The writ appeal is dismissed as the available remedy lies only post-election for including the name in the electoral roll.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against denial of inclusion in electoral roll (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dismissal of writ based on procedural limits (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. remedy for electoral roll inclusion post-elections (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final dismissal of the writ appeal (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.43145 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. W.P.(C)No.43145 of 2025 is filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 27.10.2025 (Ext.P5) and to include the petitioner’s name in the voters list of the concerned Assembly Constituency after due verification, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to have his name entered in the electoral roll based on Exts.P1 to P7 establishing his residence”.
3. According to the appellant, he is a senior citizen and a permanent resident of Thattamangalam, Pudunagaram Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District, residing at the said address for several years and holding all major statutory documents reflecting the same. The appellant’s PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, Passport, Election ID Card and bank account proof, produced as Exts.P1 to P1(d), conclusively establish his residence. Despite this, the appellant was shocked to find that although his name appears in the voters list of the concerned Assembly Constituency, his name has not been included in the final electoral roll of his ward, as evident from the voter list of the Palakkad, Chittur– Thattamangalam Municipality, 030 – Mettuvalavu Ward No. 1, produced as Ext. P1(e). The appellant is the owner and occupant of residential property in Thattamangalam and has regularly paid land tax, evidenced by Ext. P2 Land Revenue Receipt dated 20.02.2020. His continuous residence is further corroborated by Ext.P3 newspaper publication dated 16.07.2019 showing his residence and activities in Thattamangalam, and by Ext.P4 Registration Department Certificate for the period 01.01.2018 to 07.07.2022 reflecting details of his property in Sy. No.444, Block 011. The appellant submitted a detailed representation on 27.10.2025 before the District Collector requesting inclusion of his name in the electoral roll, produced as Ext. P5. However, during the period of verification, the appellant and his wife were undergoing medical treatment in Coimbatore, which prevented them from appearing in person. The appellant has produced the discharge summary of his wife and his medical report dated 16.07.2025 as Exts.P6 and P7. Despite overwhelming documentary evidence and a valid explanation for non- appearance, the respondents failed to consider the appellant’s representation or conduct due verification, thereby denying him his statutory right to vote. The inaction of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the statutory scheme under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 . Left with no other efficacious remedy, the appellant has approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. On 18.11.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment, dismissing the same. Paragraphs 4, 5 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:
“4. The Standing Counsel for the Election Commission submitted that the Election Commission gave several opportunities to the petitioner to register his name in the electoral roll and it started from 19.07.2025. The petitioner had an opportunity to submit his objection at the stage of preliminary voters list and even after the final vote
