Kerala HC Upholds Panchayat Ward Increase, Cites Constitutional Bar on Judicial Interference Under Article 243O - 2025-09-08

Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenge to Panchayat Ward Increase, Cites Constitutional Bar on Judicial Review

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment, has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the state government's decision to increase the number of wards in Grama Panchayats. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. ruled that the amendment to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is a matter related to delimitation and is protected from judicial scrutiny by the constitutional bar under Article 243O.

Case Background

The petitions, led by Abdul Hameed Moulavi vs. State of Kerala , contested the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024. This amendment increased the minimum and maximum number of seats in a Grama Panchayat from 13-23 to 14-24, respectively.

Petitioners from various populous panchayats, including Olavanna in Kozhikode and Kadinamkulam in Thiruvananthapuram, argued that this move was a superficial fix. They contended that instead of a blanket increase in wards, the government should have first addressed the massive population disparities by bifurcating oversized panchayats, a process the government itself had initiated in 2015 but later abandoned.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Stance: The petitioners, represented by Advocate P.A. Mohammed Shah and others, argued that the amendment violates the spirit of Article 243C of the Constitution. This article mandates that the ratio between the population of a panchayat and its number of seats should be uniform "so far as practicable" throughout the state. They highlighted stark disparities, citing how Mankulam Panchayat in Idukki district has a population-per-ward ratio of 685, while the populous Olavanna Panchayat has a ratio of 2,851. They argued that this disparity affects equitable resource distribution and democratic representation, and that merely increasing the number of seats fails to resolve this fundamental issue.

State's Defence: The State of Kerala, represented by the Special Government Pleader, along with the State Election and Delimitation Commissions, mounted a strong defence on the grounds of maintainability. Their primary argument was that Article 243O of the Constitution explicitly bars courts from interfering with any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats. They further contended that the decision to bifurcate panchayats is a policy matter within the executive's domain, and the court cannot issue a directive on it. They relied on a recent Division Bench ruling in State of Kerala v. Abdul Gafoor , which had upheld the validity of the current delimitation process.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. systematically addressed the legal questions, siding firmly with the respondents on the issue of judicial interference.

Constitutional Bar is Absolute: The court found that the challenge against the amendment directly falls under the purview of "delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats," and is therefore explicitly barred by Article 243O.

"As the challenge is against the law enacted by the Government in relation to the matters mentioned in Article 243K of the Constitution of India, there is a prohibition in challenging the same, as per Article 243O," the judgment noted.

The court distinguished the petitioners' reliance on Supreme Court precedents allowing judicial review by stating that those cases did not involve a specific constitutional prohibition like the one present in Article 243O.

Bifurcation is a Policy Decision: The court held that the power to alter the area of a panchayat (under Section 4 of the Act) and the power to fix its strength (under Section 6) are independent. It rejected the argument that bifurcation must precede any change in the number of wards.

"The decisions regarding the formation of new Panchayats or increase/decrease in the area of a Panchayat are matters of policy of the Government and hence such decisions of the Government can neither be interfered with nor directions could be issued to take such decisions, by this court under normal circumstances."

The court also noted that the constitutional requirement of maintaining a uniform population-to-seat ratio under Article 243C is qualified by the phrase "so far as practicable," acknowledging that absolute uniformity is not always possible due to factors like geography, terrain, and population density.

Final Decision

Finding no grounds to interfere with the legislative amendment, the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions. The judgment reinforces the principle of separation of powers, affirming that decisions related to the delimitation and composition of local bodies are within the legislative and executive spheres, insulated from judicial review by a specific constitutional mandate.