Kerala High Court
M.T. Johny vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 1 2025:KER:82770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
W.A.NO.2626 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2025 IN W.P.(C)NO.39600 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
M.T. JOHNY
AGED 77 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, MUNDACKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, VANNAPURAM P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685607
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
OFFICE OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, VIKAS BHAVAN
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 695033
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, THE OFFICER
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, PIN -
685603
4 THE SECRETARY
THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI, PAINAVU,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 2 2025:KER:82770
5 THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
IDUKKI, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 685603
BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION
COMMISSION, KERALA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. DEEPA K. R, SPL. GP
SRI. DEEPULAL MOHAN. SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KERALA SRI. JOICE GEORGE, SC, THE IDUKKI DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 3 2025:KER:82770
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant, who is a resident of Vannapuram Grama
Panchayat in Idukki District, filed W.P.(C)No.39600 of 2025,
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2
guidelines dated 24.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Kerala
State Election Commission to the extent it is silent about the
status of new wards with 100% population/voters from existing
reservation wards, ignoring the mandate of Articles 14, 243D,
243T of the Constitution of India, Sections 7 and 9 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and Section 6 of the Kerala Municipality
Act, 1994; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 performa-I showing
the percentage of population and the status of reservation during
the years 2015 and 2020, prepared by the 4th respondent
Secretary of Idukki District Panchayat and Ext.P4 order dated
21.10.2025 of the 3rd respondent District Collector, who is an
officer authorised by the 2nd respondent Kerala State Election
Commission, for fixing the reservation wards under Section 10(2A)
of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in Idukki District Panchayat, for
the general elections scheduled to be held in the year 2025; a
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 4 2025:KER:82770
declaration that ward 14-Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat
shall be a general constituency for the ensuing 2025 general
elections; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd
respondent District Collector to re-fix the women reservation
wards in Idukki District Panchayat after excluding ward 14-
Vannapuram, as the same was successively reserved during the
elections held on 2015 and 2020 and 100% population/voters are
from women reservation ward during 2020.
2. In the writ petition, on behalf of the 2nd respondent
Kerala State Election Commission, a statement dated 29.10.2025
has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel, producing
therewith Annexure R2(a) report dated nil submitted by the 4 th
respondent Secretary of Idukki District Panchayat before the 2 nd
respondent Kerala State Election Commission, regarding the
details of percentage of population included in the newly
constituted ward 14-Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat.
3. On 31.10.2025, when the writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Single Judge admitted the matter on
file. The learned Special Government Pleader took notice for
respondents 1 and 3, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala
State Election Commission for the 2nd respondent and the learned
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 5 2025:KER:82770
Standing Counsel for Idukki District Panchayat for respondents 4
and 5. The learned Single Judge passed an interim order to the
effect that the election to be conducted in ward 14-Vannapuram
of Idukki District Panchayat will be subject to the result of the writ
petition. Paragraphs 3 to 5 and also the last paragraph of that
order read thus;
"3. The point raised by the petitioner in this case is that the
petitioner is a member of a new division of Idukki District
Panchayat. According to the petitioner, it was formed
comprising 39.45% of the population of old 14-Karimannor
division and 49.19% of old 16-Mullaringadu division, which
were reserved for women during the 2020 general elections.
It is also submitted that the above wards were reserved for
SC/ST during the elections of 2015. Therefore, it is submitted
that 100% of the population in the new division 14-
Vannapuram faced reservation consecutively for women and
SC/ST. Therefore, the population in the newly formed ward
No.14- Vannapuram has to face successive reservation for
the third time is the grievance. The same is prohibited is the
further submission. The counsel for the petitioner also raised
a contention that the division 16-Mullaringadu was abolished
and the status of that ward was not given to any other ward.
4. I think, there is force in the argument. Prima facie case is
made out by the petitioner. But the Apex Court in AKM
Hassan Uzzaman v. Union of India [(1982) 2 SCC 218],
observed like this:
"Though the High Court did not lack the jurisdiction to entertain
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 6 2025:KER:82770
the writ petition and to issue appropriate directions therein, no
High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which
has the tendency or effect of postponing an election, which is
reasonably imminent, and in relation to which its writ jurisdiction
is invoked. The imminence of the electoral process is a factor
which must guide and govern the passing of orders in the
exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The more imminent
such process, the greater ought to be the reluctance of the High
Court to do anything, or direct anything to be done, which will
postpone that process indefinitely by creating a situation in which
the Government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution. ... The High Courts must
observe a self-imposed limitation on their power to act under
Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or give directions which
will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of elections to
legislative bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic
foundation and functioning of our Constitution. The limitation
ought to be observed irrespective of the fact whether the
preparation and publication of electoral rolls are a part of the
process of 'election' within the meaning of Article 329(b) of the
Constitution." (underline supplied)
5. In the light of the above dictum laid down by the Apex
Court, I am of the considered opinion that this Court need
not interfere with the same at this stage. But the election to
the newly formed ward No.14-Vannapuram will be subject to
the result of this writ petition. I am not interfering with the
same because the election is to be completed on or before
20.12.2025 as per the Constitutional mandate.
Therefore, the election to be conducted in ward No.14-
Vannapuram division of the 5th respondent Panchayat will be
subject to the result of this writ petition."
4. Challenging the interim order dated 31.10.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39600 of 2025, the appellant-
petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal.
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 7 2025:KER:82770
5. On 01.11.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
consideration in a special sitting, the learned Special Government
Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 3, the learned Standing
Counsel for Kerala State Election Commission took notice for the
2nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Idukki
District Panchayat for respondents 4 and 5.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted an interim
relief as sought for in the writ petition, i.e., staying the
implementation of Ext.P4 order dated 21.10.2025 of the 3 rd
respondent District Collector, pending disposal of the writ petition.
After noticing that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case,
the learned Single Judge declined interim relief placing reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court in AKM Hassan Uzzman v.
Union of India [(1982) 2 SCC 218], which was a case in which
no materials were before the High Court for entertaining the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned
counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Election Commission v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC
216]. The learned counsel would submit that the interim order of
the learned Single Judge that the election to be conducted in ward
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 8 2025:KER:82770
14-Vannapuram of Idukki District Panchayat will be subject to the
result of the writ petition will not serve any purpose, since no
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is legally
permissible on the election to be conducted in the ward in question,
based on the notification issued by the State Election Commission.
7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
the Kerala State Election Commission, after placing reliance on the
decisions of the Apex Court referred to in the statement dated
29.10.2025 filed in the writ petition, on behalf of the 2nd
respondent, would argue on the scope of interference by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in election matters
and the mandate of Article 243E of the Constitution of India to
ensure that the Panchayats are constituted before the expiry of its
term of five years. We also heard arguments of the learned Special
Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 and also the learned
Standing Counsel for Idukki District Panchayat for respondents 4
and 5.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State
Election Commission has referred to various provisions in Ext.P2
guidelines dated 24.09.2025 issued by the State Election
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 9 2025:KER:82770
Commission for fixing reserved constituencies in Local Self
Government Institutions. Since the scope of this writ appeal is
limited to the challenge made against the interim order dated
31.10.2025 and the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.39600 of 2025,
is pending before the learned Single Judge, we do not propose to
consider the rival contentions on the above aspect in this writ
appeal. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the interim order of the learned Single Judge that
the election to be conducted in ward 14-Vannapuram of Idukki
District Panchayat will be subject to the result of the writ petition
will not serve any purpose, since no interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is legally permissible on the election to
be conducted in the ward in question, based on the notification
issued by the State Election Commission.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to
dispose of this writ appeal by setting aside the interim order dated
31.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39600 of
2025, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by
both sides and without prejudice to their right to raise appropriate
contentions before the learned Single Judge in the pending writ
W.A.No.2626 of 2025 10 2025:KER:82770
petition. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed
anything on the merits of the matter pending before the learned
Single Judge. It would be open to the appellant-petitioner to bring
up the writ petition before the learned Single Judge for expeditious
disposal before the issuance of election notification by the State
Election Commission.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
