BALACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the petitioner in O. P. No. 12458 of 1995. He filed the original petition challenging Ext. P1 notice issued by the 4th respondent. APPELLANT is a member of the Administrative Committee of Elamad Panchayat. APPELLANT has submitted Ext. P2 representation against Ext. P1 notice. He contended that reservation of Nettayam constituency for women is without any jurisdiction. He also submitted Ext. P4 revision petition to the second respondent. The third respondent passed Ext. P5 order rejecting Ext. P4 revision petition. As per Ext. P5 order the third respondent has declared Nettayam constituency as one reserved for scheduled castes instead of women. This order is challenged in the original petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the original petition on the ground that election process has already commenced by notifying the date of election and hence Ext. P5 cannot be interfered with as it would result in meddling with the election process.

(2.) PART IX was inserted to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992. Earlier PART IX dealt with the territories in PART D of the First Schedule. That was replaced by the constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. Article 243-0 envisages that the court shall not interfere in electoral matters. Article 243-K is concerned with election of Panchayat s. Article 243-K reads: " (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayat s shall be vested in a State Election commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the governor, (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the legislature of a State, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the state Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor ma y by rule determine: Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a judge of a High Court and the conditions of service of the State Election commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (3) The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by clause (1 ). (4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayat s. " In view of Article 243-0 the court cannot interfere with electoral matters. Art. 243-0 reads: "notwithstanding any tiling in this constitution, (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Art. 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. " In view of Art. 243-0 appellant cannot successfully challenge Ext. P5 order reserving constituency No. 7 Nettayam for Scheduled Castes. He cannot also seek a declaration to the effect that the aforesaid constituency be declared as general constituency of Elamad Village Panchayat. The original petition was filed at a time when all the steps regarding division of the Panchayats into several constituencies have been completed and the election process itself was commenced by the issuance of notification fixing the date for election in September, 1995. Art. 243-0 is certainly a bar for the court to interfere in the electoral matters.