Consecutive reservations beyond two terms are unconstitutional under Articles 243D and 243T, emphasizing the balance between electoral integrity and constitutional mandates.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging allocation of reserved seats to different wards/divisions of some of the local bodies in the State for the ensuing election. They are either persons interested in electing their representatives or getting elected as the representatives of the people in the ensuing election. It is alleged in all the writ petitions that the aforesaid wards/divisions were successively reserved for one or other categories in the elections held during 2010 and 2015 and that the said wards/divisions are reserved again for the third time in the ensuing election. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid wards/divisions having been successively reserved for two consecutive elections, the said wards/divisions cannot be reserved in the ensuing election. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petitions.

2. Statements have been filed by the State Election Commission in some of the matters taking the stand that the writ petitions are belated in as much as the election has already been announced on 06.11.2020 and they are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that score. It was also contended in the statements that the petitioners being persons who have not approached this Court at the appropriate time for relief, but approached this Court when similarly placed persons obtained relief, they can be regarded only as fence sitters and they are therefore not entitled to the relief.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions rely on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.21038 of 2020 and 21821 of 2020 to bring home the point raised by them in the writ petitions that reserving a seat successively beyond two occasions, when reserved seats could be distributed in a manner that no seat would go reserved more than twice successively, is against the scheme of Articles 243D and 243T of the Constitution and also the relevant provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. It was also pointed out that the said writ petitions were disposed of directing the respondents concerned to re-allocate the reserved seats in the said local bodies afresh in a manner that no seat would go reserved more than twice successively. The learned counsel prayed for directions in tune with the judgment in the said cases.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission pointed out, at the outset that most of the writ petitions lack basic pleadings and in substantial number of writ petitions, the impugned orders are not produced. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, was that he needs to get instructions in the matters to submit even whether these matters are covered by the judgment of this court in W.P.(C) Nos.21038 and 21821 of 2020. It was, however, contended by the learned Standing Counsel that even if it is found that the writ petitions are covered by the judgment in the said cases, this Court may not interfere with the impugned decisions of the Election Commission, for interference of the impugned decisions would interrupt and protract the election which has already been announced on 06.11.2020. Placing reliance on a table furnished to the Court, the learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the orders impugned in most of the writ petitions were rendered during the last week of September 2020 or latest, by the first week of October 2020, and the petitioners who have not chosen to challenge the impugned orders, have approached this Court when similar writ petitions instituted at the appropriate time were allowed by this Court. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners in the writ petitions can be regarded therefore, only as fence sitters and they are not entitled to the relief, especially when granting of relief to them would interrupt and