JUDGMENT : C.S.DIAS, J. This batch of writ petitions lays a challenge to the final delimitation orders issued in respect of the Grama Panchayats, Block Panchayats, Municipalities, and Municipal Corporations in the State. As the questions of law raised in the cases are substantially identical, the writ petitions were jointly heard and are being decided by this common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 19182 of 2025 is treated as the lead case for reference. 2. PETITIONER'S CASE IN W.P.(C) No.19182 of 2025: The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order and Ext.P9 final delimitation order passed by the Delimitation Commission. The writ petitioner was a Ward Member of Vanimel Grama Panchayat ('Panchayat', for brevity) for two terms. On 24.09.2024, as per the procedure set-forth under Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, r/w Rule 10 of the Delimitation Commission for the Kerala Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 2005, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P1 guidelines to carry out the delimitation process for the Local Self Governments in the State of Kerala. Accordingly, the Panchayat had issued Ext.P2 draft delimitation report, based on which the 4th respondent published Ext.P3 proposal and Ext.P3(a) map of the proposed delimitation of the constituencies in the Panchayat. Upon reviewing the proposal and the map, the petitioner identified patent irregularities and manifest arbitrariness in the demarcation of the boundaries of constituencies 1 and 8. Another voter found irregularities regarding constituency No.9. The proposal and the map were intentionally made to give undue advantage to certain political parties. The boundaries have been demarcated overlooking Ext.P1 guidelines. Consequently, the petitioner and another voter submitted Exts.P4 and P6 objections to the proposal and the map. In light of the objections, the office of the District Election Officer conducted a local investigation and submitted Ext.P7 report to the 4th respondent, endorsing that the objections were correct. In the personal hearing, the petitioner reiterated his objections. However, overlooking the objections and Ext.P7 report, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P8 order, without making any amendments to Ext.P3 notification and Ext.P3(a) map, and directed the 6th respondent to file the final report along with the appendices. Accordingly, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order. Ext.P9 order is cryptic, non-speaking and illegal. Ext.P9 order can only be considered as a 'deemed law' and not a law made by the Legislature. Accordingly, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order. Ext.P9 order is cryptic, non-speaking and illegal. Ext.P9 order can only be considered as a 'deemed law' and not a law made by the Legislature. Therefore, the embargo under Article 243-O (a) of the Constitution of India is not applicable. If judicial intervention is barred, the petitioner would be left without a remedy. In Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. Secretary, Governor's Secretariat & others, [2019 KHC 7239], the Supreme Court has held that there is no bar for a constitutional court to intervene in matters that facilitate elections or when a case of mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power is established. Hence, Exts.P8 and P9 orders may be quashed. 3. THE GIST OF THE CHALLENGE IN CONNECTED WRIT PETITIONS: The following writ petitions are filed echoing similar grievances as in W.P. (C) No.19182 of 2025, that the procedure leading to final delimitation orders was neither fair nor transparent, the objections raised by the petitioners were ignored without assigning any reason, there was deliberate gerrymandering, misallocation of house numbers, arbitrary fixation of ward boundaries and the petitioners were not heard, etc. Thus, the final delimitation orders are illegal and arbitrary, and are liable to be quashed. The crux of the challenge in the writ petitions is as follows: 3.1. W.P(C)No.19332/2025: The petitioners are the residents of Ward No.14 of Naduvil Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). Pursuant to the amendment of Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj, 1994, the Delimitation Commission, Kerala, has issued guidelines under Section 10 of the Act for dividing the Panchayat into constituencies according to the prescribed number of members and for determining the boundaries of the constituencies. In response to the delimitation proposal of the above ward, the petitioners submitted their objections due to irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation resulting from inaccuracies in the digital mapping. The District Election Officer investigated the objections through an Inquiry Officer, who, in turn, submitted Ext.P4 report, without proper field verification, containing erroneous data regarding ward boundaries and the number of houses. Although the Secretary submitted a correct field-verification report (Ext.P5), the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P10 order modifying all the ward boundaries based on Exts.P4 and P9 reports. While the Panchayat further submitted Ext.P11 objection, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P12 order, which only partially addressed the irregularities. Although the Secretary submitted a correct field-verification report (Ext.P5), the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P10 order modifying all the ward boundaries based on Exts.P4 and P9 reports. While the Panchayat further submitted Ext.P11 objection, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P12 order, which only partially addressed the irregularities. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P13 order, confirming the changes in Exts.P10 and P12 orders. Ext.P13 order is illegal and arbitrary. 3.2. W.P.(C)No.20851/2025: The petitioners are residents of the A.R.Nagar Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They submitted their objections to the delimitation proposal for their ward due to serious irregularities in ward boundaries, house allocation, and population computation resulting from inaccuracies in digital mapping. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report without proper field verification. A name-sake hearing was conducted. Subsequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Exts.P6, P7, and P8 orders, making substantial amendments to the draft order. However, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P10 final delimitation order, confirming the amendments. Nevertheless, the order contains errors, including the use of unidentified roads and private properties as boundaries, the misallocation of house numbers, and a failure to ensure equal population distribution and voter convenience. 3.3. W.P (C)No.20837/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Ramanthalli Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They submitted their objections to the delimitation proposal for their ward due to the serious irregularities in ward boundaries, erroneous inclusion of house numbers, and the use of unidentified roads as boundaries. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report without proper field verification. A formal hearing was conducted. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order, identical to the proposal, except for making some minor corrections, disregarding the objections raised by the petitioners. 3.4. W.P (C)No.19384/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Udma Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They submitted their objections to the delimitation proposal for their ward due to serious irregularities in ward boundaries and population allocation, resulting from the reliance on artificial boundaries instead of available natural ones, and significant population imbalances among wards that exceeded the permissible limit. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report without proper field verification. A perfunctory hearing was also conducted. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order, based on the draft order, without rectifying the substantive irregularities pointed out by the petitioners. 3.5. W.P.(C)No.23818/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Padne Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). The Inquiry Officer submitted a report without proper field verification. A perfunctory hearing was also conducted. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order, based on the draft order, without rectifying the substantive irregularities pointed out by the petitioners. 3.5. W.P.(C)No.23818/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Padne Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They submitted their objections to the delimitation proposal for their ward due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting in inaccuracies in the digital mapping. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report after field verification and a name- sake inquiry. In the meantime, the Panchayat Secretary submitted Ext.P7, which contained revised appendices with glaring errors. After that, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P8 final order, failing to address the fundamental flaws in the draft order. The State Election Commission has issued Ext.P10 order to finalise the voters' list based on Ext.P8 order. 3.6. W.P.(C)No.21800/2025: The petitioners are the residents of Moodadi Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They submitted their objections to the delimitation proposal for their ward due to the irregularities in determining ward boundaries. The Inquiry Officer conducted a name-sake inquiry and did not verify the objections. Despite Ext.P3 communication issued by the Delimitation Commission to rectify such deficiencies, the Panchayat Secretary did not take any action. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P6 order with minor changes, without addressing the petitioners' concerns. Later, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order without correcting the fundamental flaws in the proposal. 3.7. W.P(C)No.21823/2025: The petitioners are residents of Cherupara Ward in the Alakkode Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They submitted their objections to the delimitation proposal for the above ward due to the minor anomalies in the redrawn boundaries. The Inquiry Officer submitted Ext.P5 report, which contained an unrequested suggestion to change the boundaries of the Cherupara, Thimiri, and Marygiri wards. Based on the above, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P6 amendment order, revising the boundaries of the three wards and directed the Panchayat Secretary (6th respondent) to update the database. While doing so, the 6th respondent submitted a revised Appendix 2A (Ext.P7) based on the erroneous suggestions in Ext.P5. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P9 final order without rectifying the errors or providing an opportunity to the residents to object to the unnotified changes. 3.8. W.P(C)No.21923/2025: The petitioners are residents of various wards in the Eriyad Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). While doing so, the 6th respondent submitted a revised Appendix 2A (Ext.P7) based on the erroneous suggestions in Ext.P5. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P9 final order without rectifying the errors or providing an opportunity to the residents to object to the unnotified changes. 3.8. W.P(C)No.21923/2025: The petitioners are residents of various wards in the Eriyad Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because of the irregularities in the wards’ boundaries and house allocation. The Inquiry Officer conducted a token inquiry. Although the Delimitation Commission conducting a hearing, as per Ext.P9 order, only five minor changes were made. None of the substantive irregularities raised by the petitioners were considered. Consequently, Ext.P10 final order was passed, confirming the boundaries as stated in Ext.P9 order. 3.9. W.P(C)No.19182/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Vanimel Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), submitted his objection to the delimitation proposal for the above ward due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation resulting from inaccuracies in the digital mapping. The District Election Officer’s office conducted a local investigation and submitted Ext.P7 report to the Delimitation Commission, confirming the irregularities and recommending that the petitioner's objection be considered. However, the Delimitation Commission, after conducting a hearing, passed Ext.P8 non-speaking order stating that no amendments are necessary to the draft notification and map. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P9 final order, confirming the proposal. 3.10. W.P(C)No.21718/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Edachery Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), submitted his objection to the delimitation proposal, citing irregularities in the demarcation of wards and the inclusion of houses from a different revenue division. The District Election Officer’s office conducted a local investigation and submitted Ext.P5 recommendation report, accepting the petitioner's objection and recommending changes. However, after a personal hearing, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P6, ordering that no amendments be made. Subsequently, Ext.P7 final order was passed, confirming Ext.P6 order and the delimitation proposal. 3.11. W.P.(C)No.22021/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No. 15 of the Madhur Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and population allocation. The District Election Officer conducted a local inspection and submitted Ext.P6 report to the Delimitation Commission, expressly endorsing the petitioner's objection and recommending to incorporate his suggestions. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P8 final delimitation order without any modifications, disregarding both the petitioner's objection and Ext.P6 report. 3.12. The District Election Officer conducted a local inspection and submitted Ext.P6 report to the Delimitation Commission, expressly endorsing the petitioner's objection and recommending to incorporate his suggestions. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P8 final delimitation order without any modifications, disregarding both the petitioner's objection and Ext.P6 report. 3.12. W.P.(C)No.22267/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Ajanur Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. After hearing the objectors, the District Election Officer conducted a local inspection and submitted a report to the Delimitation Commission explicitly endorsing the petitioners' objections. Despite the report, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P6 order by making modifications to only some wards and completely disregarding the petitioners' objections and the report. The Delimitation Commission then issued Ext.P7 final order, based on Ext.P6 order and the draft proposal, without addressing the petitioners' grievances. 3.13. W.P.(C)No.23367/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Porur Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation in Constituency Nos.5, 6, and 12. The District Election Officer’s office conducted a local investigation and submitted Ext.P7 report, finding that the irregularities were genuine and recommending that the objection raised by the petitioner be considered. Despite conducting a hearing, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P8 non-speaking order, stating that no amendments were needed to the draft proposal without providing any reason for not considering the objection or Ext.P7 report. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P9 final order, solely relying on the draft proposal. 3.14. W.P.(C)No.20881/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.24 of the Wandoor Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation by including 68 houses from Ward No.2 in Ward No.24 and overlooking the geographical boundary. Based on the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and the District Electoral Officer, which were in line with the Exts.P5 and P6 judgments of this Court, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P3 order, by which a geographical boundary determined the eastern boundary of Ward No.24. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 order, modifying the well- considered Ext.P3 order without notice to the petitioner, by changing the geographical boundary of Ward No.24. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 order, modifying the well- considered Ext.P3 order without notice to the petitioner, by changing the geographical boundary of Ward No.24. Although the petitioner challenged this order by filing W.P.(C) No.20175/2025 before this Court, the same was withdrawn as the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P8 final order. Ext.P8 order incorporates the illegal modifications made in Ext.P7 order and overlooks Ext.P3 order. 3.15. W.P(C)No.21085/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Melattoor Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in the ward boundaries and the number of houses. After conducting a hearing, the Delimitation Commission deputed a block development officer to conduct an inspection, who submitted a report pointing out the mistakes and recommending corrections. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order without relying on the inquiry report or correcting the errors. 3.16. W.P(C)No.21886/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Vanimel Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal in view of the irregularities in the delimitation of wards which occurred due to the draft report prepared by a Secretary, who had not taken charge of the Panchayat. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court directed the Delimitation Commission and the District Election Officer to consider the petitioner’s representation. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 objection, highlighting several irregularities. The Inquiry Officer conducted a field inquiry and submitted Ext.P11 report endorsing the petitioner's objection. After a perfunctory public hearing, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P14 order affirming the erroneous draft proposal. 3.17. W.P.(C)No.22405/2025: The petitioner, a voter in Ward No.16 of the Mavoor Grama Panchayat, had objected to the delimitation proposal, citing irregularities in the fixation of boundaries and the area included in each ward. The Inquiry Officer submitted Ext.P1 report, finding the petitioner’s objection to be meritorious. However, the Delimitation Commission, by completely ignoring Ext.P1 report, issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order without making any changes to the draft. 3.18. W.P.(C) No.22422/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Anakkayam Grama Panchayat, who had objected to the delimitation proposal due to the inaccuracies in determining the boundaries of wards. Pursuant to an inquiry, Ext.P3 recommendation was submitted to the Delimitation Commission in favour of the petitioners. Although this Court, by Ext.P7 judgment, had directed the Delimitation Commission to consider the objections before taking a final decision, Ext.P8 final order was passed confirming the draft proposal. 3.19. Pursuant to an inquiry, Ext.P3 recommendation was submitted to the Delimitation Commission in favour of the petitioners. Although this Court, by Ext.P7 judgment, had directed the Delimitation Commission to consider the objections before taking a final decision, Ext.P8 final order was passed confirming the draft proposal. 3.19. W.P.(C)No.23028/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because of the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. Subsequently, a hearing was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report. However, to the petitioners' dismay, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P16 final delimitation order without correcting the errors. 3.20. W.P.(C)No.23180/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Chathamangalam Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in the boundary demarcation. The District Election Officer’s office conducted a local investigation and submitted Ext.P6 recommendation report, confirming the irregularities and recommending that the objection be considered. Despite Ext.P6 recommendation report and a personal hearing, the Delimitation Commission passed a non-speaking order, which was not communicated to the petitioner, stating that no amendments were needed. Subsequently, Ext.P8 final order was published, confirming the proposal without providing any reason for discarding the petitioner's objection or the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer. 3.21. W.P.(C)No.23191/2025: The petitioner is a resident of the Vanimal Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). He objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. The District Election Officer conducted a local inspection and submitted Ext.P7 report fully endorsing the petitioner’s objection. Although the petitioner attended the personal hearing, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P8, ordering the rejection of the objection without assigning any reason. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P9 final order relying solely on the flawed proposal and Ext.P8 report, ignoring the petitioner’s objection and the recommendations of the 5th respondent. 3.22. W.P.(C)No.21229/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Perumbadappu Grama Panchayat (4th respondent). They objected to the delimitation notification due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the number of houses. Although the District Collector conducted an inquiry and submitted a report concurring with the petitioners' suggestions, the Delimitation Commission, after hearing, issued Ext.P6 final notification, without assigning any reason for rejecting the proposed modifications. 3.23. W.P.(C)No.23683/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Peruvayal Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent). Although the District Collector conducted an inquiry and submitted a report concurring with the petitioners' suggestions, the Delimitation Commission, after hearing, issued Ext.P6 final notification, without assigning any reason for rejecting the proposed modifications. 3.23. W.P.(C)No.23683/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Peruvayal Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent). The petitioners and other residents objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. An Inquiry Officer investigated the objections and submitted Ext.P1 report endorsing the objections. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P3 final order without considering any of the objections and recommendations. 3.24. W.P.(C)No.23962/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Cheruvannur Grama Panchayat (4th respondent). They objected to the draft proposal because of irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to inaccuracies in the data. The District Collector conducted a separate inquiry and submitted Ext.P6 report, identifying several anomalies and recommending corrections. Although a hearing was conducted by the Delimitation Commission, Ext.P5 final delimitation order was issued identical to the proposal. 3.25. W.P.(C)No.24026/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Ayancheri Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the proposal because there were numerous discrepancies and irregularities in the proposed ward divisions. The Investigation Officer submitted Ext.P4 report endorsing the petitioner's objection and recommending a fresh delimitation. However, without adequately considering the findings in Ext.P4 report and the petitioner's objection, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order, which is in line with the proposal. 3.26. W.P.(C)No.24683/2025: The petitioner, a resident in Ward No.4 of the Koodaranji Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the ground that there were irregularities in ward boundaries. The Inquiry Officer submitted Ext.P3 report, finding the objection to have substance and merit, and recommending that the boundaries be refixed according to the petitioner's suggestions. Yet, without considering Ext.P3 report, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order with only minor modifications and without addressing the objection. 3.27. W.P(C)No.24780/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because it was unscientific, arbitrary, and politically motivated, and it violated constitutional and legal principles. The Inquiry Officer had submitted Ext.P3 report, finding that most of the objections were meritorious and recommending them to be considered. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order without making material changes and without addressing the errors pointed out in the objections or Ext.P3 report. The Inquiry Officer had submitted Ext.P3 report, finding that most of the objections were meritorious and recommending them to be considered. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order without making material changes and without addressing the errors pointed out in the objections or Ext.P3 report. 3.28. W.P(C)No.24838/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Kasargod Municipality (5th respondent), along with others, had objected to the delimitation proposal in view of the irregularities in ward boundaries. The Inquiry Officer, in Exts.P6 and P7 reports, recommended the suggestions for consideration. Nevertheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P12 final delimitation order without rectifying any of the anomalies or considering Exts.P6 and P7 reports. 3.29. W.P.(C)No.25215/2025: The petitioners are the permanent residents of the Ananganadi Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal, stating that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to arbitrary and unscientific divisions, which disregarded natural boundaries, population disparities, and community cohesion. Consequently, the petitioners were heard, and their objections were verified by the District Election Officer, who found merit in the objections, and submitted Ext.P5 recommendation report. The petitioners also attended a personal hearing conducted by the Delimitation Commission, which issued Ext.P10 order making only limited modifications to the proposals and failing to address the petitioners' grievances. Relying on Ext.P11 certification, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P12 final order, disregarding the rectifications accepted in principle. 3.30. W.P(C)No.22284/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Kattippara Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from the non- consideration of the natural boundaries and geographic features. The petitioners attended a hearing conducted by an officer deputed by the District Collector (4th respondent). The 4th respondent found the objections to be genuine and submitted Ext.P6 report to the Delimitation Commission. However, without considering the recommendations in Ext.P6 report or the objections, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order, which is a re-issuance of the proposal. 3.31. W.P(C)No.27122/2025: The petitioner, a voter and member of the Wandoor Grama Panchayat, objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation. The Inquiry Officer submitted Exts.P4(a), P5(a) and P6(a) reports with three specific findings and suggestions. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order, ignoring the reports and taking a different stand than the proposal. 3.32. The Inquiry Officer submitted Exts.P4(a), P5(a) and P6(a) reports with three specific findings and suggestions. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order, ignoring the reports and taking a different stand than the proposal. 3.32. W.P.(C)No.27275/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Mogralputhoor Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the ground that there were irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation, and the unscientific division of wards that were separated by a national highway. The Inquiry Officer submitted Ext.P4 report, finding the objection to be correct. Despite the report and the existence of Ext.P5 sketch, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P6 final delimitation notification without modifying the proposal. 3.33. W.P.(C)No.27245/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.8 of Kokkayar Grama Panchayat, objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation due to the arbitrary increase in the number of wards despite a decrease in population. The 7th respondent heard the petitioner, and the Inquiry Officer submitted a favourable report to the Delimitation Commission. Although the petitioner was also heard by the Delimitation Commission, without recording the submissions, Ext.P8 final delimitation notification was published, completely disregarding the objections and without intimating the petitioner. 3.34. W.P.(C)No.27933/2025: The petitioners, the residents of the Kanhangad Block Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation because of inaccuracies in the digital mapping. The District Election Officer conducted a hearing and a local inspection, and the Inquiry Officer of the 5th respondent submitted Ext.P5 field verification report to the Delimitation Commission, endorsing the objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners reiterated their objections in the public hearing. Yet, the 6th respondent submitted Ext.P7 report disregarding the petitioners' objections and the findings in the inquiry report. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission issued a revised Ext.P8 order, incorporating only a few changes without providing any reason for ignoring the petitioners’ contentions or the inquiry report. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P9 final delimitation order, confirming the changes in Ext.P8 order. 3.35. W.P.(C)No.24084/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Kodur Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P9 final delimitation order, confirming the changes in Ext.P8 order. 3.35. W.P.(C)No.24084/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Kodur Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation. The District Election Officer’s office conducted a local investigation and submitted Ext.P6 report to the Delimitation Commission, finding the petitioner's objections to be tenable and recommending that they be considered. The petitioner also attended a personal hearing conducted by the Delimitation Commission. However, overlooking Ext.P6 report, Ext.P7 final delimitation order has been passed in line with the proposal. 3.36. W.P.(C)No.24400/2025: The petitioners are residents of Ward No.20 of the Payyoli Municipality (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation, which resulted from inaccuracies in the digital mapping. The District Collector, based on the objections submitted by the petitioners and other residents, recommended reforming the wards. However, the Delimitation Commission disregarded the recommendations and objections, and issued Ext.P3 final delimitation order as per the proposal. 3.37. W.P.(C)No.21017/2025: The petitioners are the residents of Ramanthali Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because several irregularities existed in the ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from inaccurate population calculations based on the 2011 census. The calculations, in turn, relied on building counts that included non-residential structures and duplicated building counts. Although a hearing was conducted, the objections were not acknowledged. The petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.10385/2025 before this Court, which was disposed of on the undertaking of the Delimitation Commission that the objections would be considered. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order, without considering the objections raised by the petitioners. 3.38. W.P.(C)No.19963/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Eramam Kuttoor Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal asserting that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to incorrect population calculations, inclusion of non-residential buildings in the count, unclear boundaries, and the division of the 11th constituency into three unconnected parts. Although a hearing was conducted, the objections were not acknowledged. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.17300/2025 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, based on the undertaking of the Delimitation Commission that Ext.P4 objection would be considered. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order without considering Ext.P4 objection. 3.39. Although a hearing was conducted, the objections were not acknowledged. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.17300/2025 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, based on the undertaking of the Delimitation Commission that Ext.P4 objection would be considered. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order without considering Ext.P4 objection. 3.39. W.P.(C) No.20256/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Thiruvallur Grama Panchayat (7th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because it was prepared relying on the report submitted by the 8th respondent, who lacked the authority to do so due to the multiple transfers at the Secretary’s office and an order staying his appointment, and also due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to inaccuracies in the digital mapping. However, in the hearing, the objection regarding the 8th respondent’s authority was disregarded. Although the petitioners filed a representation before the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions, the same has not been considered till date. Subsequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order, failing to rectify the irregularities in the proposal. 3.40. W.P.(C)No.21803/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Delampady Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries. The Delimitation Commission heard the objections raised by the petitioners. Yet, it issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order without correcting the illegalities, despite Ext.P8 communication issued to all the District Electoral Officers to ensure the correctness of the proposals. 3.41. W.P.(C)No.22439/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Perambra Grama Panchayat (4th respondent), along with other residents of the Panchayat, objected to the delimitation proposal, pointing out various irregularities in determining boundaries of the wards and significant data discrepancies. Despite hearing the petitioner, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P5 final order, identical to the proposal, without any alteration. 3.42. W.P.(C)No.25432/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Karuvarakundu Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. Even though the petitioner was heard in the matter, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P6 final delimitation order, without adverting to the petitioner’s contentions. 3.43. W.P.(C)No.25916/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Kottoor Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They had objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from the fixation of boundaries that disregarded natural boundaries. 3.43. W.P.(C)No.25916/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Kottoor Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They had objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from the fixation of boundaries that disregarded natural boundaries. The petitioners submitted a detailed explanation, along with maps, in the hearing conducted by the Delimitation Commission. However, the Secretary of the Panchayat submitted Ext.P12 report without considering the petitioners' objections. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P13 final delimitation order without correcting the errors. 3.44. W.P.(C)No.19960/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Kallingal, Keezhuparamba Grama Panchayat (4th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and population allocation, especially with respect to the proposed Ward No.1. Although the Delimitation Commission listed Keezhuparamba as a consideration-worthy Panchayat in view of the objections raised by the public, a local inquiry was conducted, without proper notice. Later, Ext.P3 final delimitation order was issued based on the proposal, without addressing or even referring to the specific concerns raised by the petitioner and other residents. 3.45. W.P.(C)No.19625/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Kunhimangalam Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to the arbitrary inclusion of residences from one ward to another, disregarding the natural boundary of the railway line. After the Delimitation Commission conducted a hearing, it issued Ext.P7 notice to the District Electoral Officer to re-verify the proposals. In response, the Secretary of the Panchayat submitted Ext.P8 report in violation of the guidelines. After that, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P9 final delimitation order, confirming the proposal and Ext.P8 report, without considering the objection. 3.46. W.P.(C)No.21071/2025: The petitioners are the ward members of the Onchiyam Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because a railway line passes through the middle of Ward No.11, in violation of the guidelines and causing inconvenience to the residents. The District Collector, after hearing the parties, found the objections to be genuine, and forwarded Ext.P4 report to the Delimitation Commission to re-form the wards for the convenience of the local people. However, without considering Ext.P4 report or the objections, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order. 3.47. W.P.(C)No.21079/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Velom Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). However, without considering Ext.P4 report or the objections, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order. 3.47. W.P.(C)No.21079/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Velom Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal, which sought to bifurcate an area with both residential and commercial buildings into separate wards. The District Collector found the objections to be genuine and forwarded Ext.P3 report to the Delimitation Commission to re-form the wards for the convenience of the local people. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order without considering Ext.P3 report or the objections. 3.48. W.P.(C)No.21490/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Thalayazham Grama Panchayat, had objected to the delimitation order on the ground that there were irregularities in the determination of the ward boundaries. Subsequently, a joint hearing was held for all objectors in the district, and the Delimitation Commission published Ext.P6 final delimitation order, without considering the objections. 3.49. W.P.(C)No.21783/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Vatanappally Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in determining ward boundaries and the number of houses. The Delimitation Commission, after hearing the parties, passed Ext.P5 order making minor modifications, disregarding the petitioner's objection. Ext.P6 final delimitation order was subsequently passed, confirming the delimitation as per the proposal and Ext.P5 order. 3.50. W.P.(C)No.22473/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Thurayur Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries, house allocation, and population distribution. The District Election Officer conducted a hearing and assured that the errors would be rectified. Although the Delimitation Commission promised to effect changes to the proposal, and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat submitting Ext.P4 revised appendix, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final order, confirming the defects that persisted in the draft order. 3.51. W.P.(C)No.22565/2025: The petitioner is a residents' association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and situated within the Perumbavoor Municipality (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in the ward boundary demarcation. The Delimitation Commission conducted a personal hearing, but refused to consider the objection stating that it would exceed the permissible number of houses. The 6th respondent, in Ext.P7 reply, to an application under the RTI Act, has admitted the error in the house count. They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in the ward boundary demarcation. The Delimitation Commission conducted a personal hearing, but refused to consider the objection stating that it would exceed the permissible number of houses. The 6th respondent, in Ext.P7 reply, to an application under the RTI Act, has admitted the error in the house count. Nevertheless, the Delimitation Commission has passed Ext.P8 final delimitation order without considering the objection or assigning reasons for confirming the boundaries as specified in the draft order. 3.52. W.P.(C)No.22939/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Pathanamthitta Municipality (3rd respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal because the existing Ward No.25 was unscientifically bifurcated and its houses were divided into two new wards, namely, Ward Nos.14 and 18, in disregard of the prescribed norms. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P7 hearing notes during the hearing. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P8 final order without making any changes to the proposal or assigning any reason for the non-considering the objection. 3.53. W.P.(C)No.21601/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Ulliyeri Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. The petitioners also submitted a detailed explanation and supporting documents during the hearing conducted by the Delimitation Commission to establish the illegalities. Nevertheless, the Secretary of Panchayat submitted Ext.P9 report without addressing the objections raised. The Delimitation Commission, acting on the report, issued Ext.P10 final delimitation order without correcting the errors. 3.54. W.P.(C)No.22965/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Chakkittappara Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal, pointing out the variation in the population figures. The petitioners also reiterated their objections in the hearing. However, the Delimitation Commission, disregarding the submissions, issued Ext.P8 final delimitation order without effecting any change. Subsequently, they issued Ext.P9 erratum notification, changing the names of two constituencies. 3.55. W.P.(C)No.23706/2025: The petitioner is the former President of the Koothali Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). He objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. Despite the petitioner submitting his objection and attending the hearing, Ext.P3 Constituency Division List was published without incorporating any of the petitioner's objection. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 revised ward map proposing a lawful alternative, which was disregarded. After that, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P5 final delimitation order, without rectifying the illegalities in the proposal. 3.56. Despite the petitioner submitting his objection and attending the hearing, Ext.P3 Constituency Division List was published without incorporating any of the petitioner's objection. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 revised ward map proposing a lawful alternative, which was disregarded. After that, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P5 final delimitation order, without rectifying the illegalities in the proposal. 3.56. W.P.(C)No.23751/2025: The petitioners are the residents of Olavanna Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from inaccuracies in the digital mapping. The petitioners also submitted evidence in this regard to the Inquiry Officer and participated in the hearing. Although the Delimitation Commission issued a circular requesting verification of 13 specific defects, the petitioners contend that eight of the defects remain unrectified in Ext.P3 final delimitation order. 3.57. W.P.(C)No.23761/2025: The petitioner, a resident of old division No.5 (Mattanchery) of the Kochi Municipal Corporation (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and population allocation due to inaccuracies in the census data. Although the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 field-verification proposal during the hearing conducted by the District Election Officer, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 order, modifying the ward boundaries based on the objections raised by a political party, without considering the petitioner's objection. Although the petitioner submitted another objection with RTI-based evidence showing massive defects, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P8 final order, which partially addressed the irregularities. 3.58. W.P.(C)No.23886/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Panangad Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in the delimitation of Ward Nos.8 and 9, specifically regarding the demarcation of boundaries and the inclusion of residential houses. The Delimitation Commission, on realising the seriousness of the widespread anomalies, issued Ext.P5 circular to all District Electoral Officers to obtain a certificate from the Secretaries of the LSG Institutions to verify the correctness of their proposals. Despite the circular, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P6 final delimitation order, without rectifying the illegalities in the proposal. 3.59. W.P.(C)No.23887/2025: The petitioner is the former member of Ward No.7 of the Kadampanad Grama Panchayat. He objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation, which were caused by inaccuracies in digital mapping. During the hearing, the petitioner was orally informed that the complaint had merit. 3.59. W.P.(C)No.23887/2025: The petitioner is the former member of Ward No.7 of the Kadampanad Grama Panchayat. He objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation, which were caused by inaccuracies in digital mapping. During the hearing, the petitioner was orally informed that the complaint had merit. However, the Delimitation Commission passed Exts.P7 and P8 delimitation orders without considering the objection and without affording a proper hearing. 3.60. W.P.(C)No.24169/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Thikkodi Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal because there were several defects and irregularities in the proposed ward divisions. Subsequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P2 guidelines for considering objections and holding a personal hearing by an officer deputed by the District Collector. Although the petitioner submitted his objection and suggestion, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P3 final order in accordance with the proposal. 3.61. W.P.(C)No.24689/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Kuttiady Grama Panchayat (4th respondent), along with other residents, objected to the delimitation proposal on the ground that it contained numerous errors. Although the Delimitation Commission conducted a hearing, it issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order without making any material alteration to the proposal. 3.62. W.P.(C)No.24735/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Peringom Vayakkara Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the ground that there were serious errors concerning Ward Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The Delimitation Commission, on realising the seriousness of the widespread anomalies, issued Ext.P4 notice to all District Electoral Officers to obtain a certificate from the Secretaries of the LSG Institutions as to the correctness of their proposals. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order without correcting the illegalities in the proposal. 3.63. W.P.(C)No.25042/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Kuzhippilly Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. The Panchayat conducted a personal hearing to investigate the objections. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order without considering the petitioners' objection. 3.64. W.P.(C)No.24889/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Vallikkunnu Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the Delimitation Commission to conduct the delimitation process in accordance with the guidelines and assessment register. 3.64. W.P.(C)No.24889/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Vallikkunnu Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the Delimitation Commission to conduct the delimitation process in accordance with the guidelines and assessment register. Although the petitioners submitted several complaints and attended a hearing, their grievances were not appropriately noted. Instead, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order without curing the defects in the proposal. 3.65. W.P.(C)No.24988/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Vembayam Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the arbitrary and unscientific nomenclature assigned to Ward Nos.1 and 2, which resulted in the deletion of the name "Nannattukavu." Even though the 2nd petitioner was heard and Exts.P5 and P6 were issued, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P1 final delimitation order, disregarding the petitioners’ objection and the name of Ward No.2, was changed from "Nannattukavu" to "Chathanpadu". 3.66. W.P.(C)No.25480/2025: The petitioner, a permanent resident of the Pilicode Grama Panchayat, objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to unscientific demarcation, arbitrary exclusion/inclusion of houses, and the failure to follow natural and administrative boundaries. Although the petitioner attended a personal hearing and reiterated his objections, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P6 final delimitation order, without making any modifications and without providing any reasons for disregarding the objection. 3.67. W.P.(C)No.25503/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Puthucode Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to the illogical division of wards. The petitioner also reiterated his objection in the hearing. Nevertheless, without considering the anomalies, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner subsequently filed Ext.P7 representation, but the same has not been considered. 3.68. W.P.(C)No.25572/2025: The petitioners are permanent residents of the Chorode Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from the unscientific and arbitrary lines. During the local inspection, the District Election Officer was convinced that the objections were genuine. However, it is assumed that the report was never submitted to the Delimitation Commission. They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from the unscientific and arbitrary lines. During the local inspection, the District Election Officer was convinced that the objections were genuine. However, it is assumed that the report was never submitted to the Delimitation Commission. Although the Delimitation Commission conducted a personal hearing, Ext.P7 final delimitation order was issued in line with the proposal. The order is a non- speaking one that does not provide any reason to overrule the objections. 3.69. W.P.(C)No.25866/2025: The petitioners are permanent residents of the Azhiyur Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to unscientific and arbitrary delineation, as well as ignoring the natural boundaries. Even though the petitioners attended the personal hearing, the Delimitation Commission, by Ext.P7 order, held that no amendments are required. Consequently, Ext.P8 final delimitation order was issued confirming the proposal. 3.70. W.P.(C)No.26385/2025: The petitioner is a member of Ward No.7 in the Pattuvam Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). He objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, disregarding the natural and geographical features. In the hearing conducted by the Delimitation Commission, they were convinced of the error. They also issued a directive for the LSG Institutions to certify the correctness of the proposal. Despite the above direction, Ext.P5 final delimitation order was issued without correcting the illegalities pointed out by the petitioner. 3.71. W.P.(C)No.26524/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Pandikkad Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation in light of the omission of a portion of the erstwhile Ward No.13 from the newly notified wards. Although the petitioner was heard in the matter, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order, without considering the objection, and without assigning any reason, thereby conflicting with Ext.P5 map. 3.72. W.P.(C)No.22222/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation. The petitioner’s proposal for an alternative delimitation was summarily rejected in the hearing. Accordingly, Ext.P7 final delimitation order was issued fully accepting the proposal of the 6th respondent. 3.73. W.P.(C)No.22222/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Vijayapuram Grama Panchayat (6th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation. The petitioner’s proposal for an alternative delimitation was summarily rejected in the hearing. Accordingly, Ext.P7 final delimitation order was issued fully accepting the proposal of the 6th respondent. 3.73. W.P.(C)No.27304/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.4 in Vengad Panchayat in Thalassery Block Panchayat (4th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in the boundaries of Ward Nos.3, 4 and 5 and the house allocation. The Delimitation Commission rejected the petitioner’s objection and issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order confirming the proposal. 3.74. W.P.(C)No.27299/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.5 of the Oachira Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal because of the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to the shifting of the western side of the railway line to the 6th Ward. Although a hearing was conducted by the Delimitation Commission and the District Election Officer, Ext.P6 final delimitation order was issued, confirming the proposal without addressing the petitioner's objection. 3.75. W.P.(C)No.21237/2025: The petitioners are residents of Ward No.14 in the Karassery Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from inaccuracies in the digital mapping. Consequently, the District Election Officer (4th respondent) appointed the Assistant Engineer of Koduvally Block Panchayat as the Inquiry Officer to investigate the objections, who refused to conduct a proper field inquiry. As a result, the 2nd petitioner filed Ext.P8 complaint against the officer, but no action was taken in the matter. Although the Delimitation Commission conducted a hearing and assured the petitioners that the errors would be addressed, it issued Ext.P11 order, without making any changes, except for a change in the ward’s name. Consequently, Ext.P12 final delimitation order was issued confirming the proposal and Ext.P11 order. 3.76. W.P.(C)No.21089/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Ponmundam Grama Panchayat (4th respondent). They had objected to the delimitation proposal due to its inward boundaries and the allocation of houses. Even though a hearing was conducted, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order without considering the objections raised by the petitioners. 3.77. 3.76. W.P.(C)No.21089/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Ponmundam Grama Panchayat (4th respondent). They had objected to the delimitation proposal due to its inward boundaries and the allocation of houses. Even though a hearing was conducted, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order without considering the objections raised by the petitioners. 3.77. W.P.(C)No.21019/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Malappuram Municipality (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal, highlighting several irregularities in determining the ward boundaries. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P6 final delimitation order based on the proposal, without considering the objections raised and without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. 3.78. W.P.(C)No.21056/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Thalakkad Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal for the reasons that there were irregularities in the delimitation of wards and boundaries. Although the Delimitation Commission listed ‘Thalakkad’ as a consideration-worthy Panchayat, and a local inquiry was conducted, no effective hearing took place. Subsequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P3 final delimitation order, without addressing the specific objections raised by the petitioner and other residents. 3.79. W.P.(C)No.21065/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Valillapuzha in Keezhuparamba Grama Panchayat (4th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposals because there were irregularities in the delimitation of Ward Nos.1, 2, 5, 9, 15, and 16. Although the above six wards were officially listed as consideration- worthy in Ext.P4 List of Recommendations Requiring Additional Information, no personal hearing was conducted. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P3 final delimitation order, without making any substantive change in the proposal and without assigning reasons for rejecting the objection. 3.80. W.P.(C)No.21716/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.16 of the Pulpally Grama Panchayat (4th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal because of the irregularities in ward boundaries and population distribution. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P1 final delimitation order without considering the objection raised by the petitioner. 3.81. W.P.(C)No.23281/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Ottapalam Municipality (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal by pointing out significant discrepancies in the number of inhabited houses. Nevertheless, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P1 final delimitation order, without addressing the contentions in Ext.P4 hearing note submitted by the petitioner. 3.82. 3.81. W.P.(C)No.23281/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Ottapalam Municipality (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal by pointing out significant discrepancies in the number of inhabited houses. Nevertheless, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P1 final delimitation order, without addressing the contentions in Ext.P4 hearing note submitted by the petitioner. 3.82. W.P.(C)No.25361/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Orangattiri Grama Panchayat (6 th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal because of the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, shifting of houses without any rational and the violation of population deviation limits. Yet, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P3 final delimitation order, based on the flawed Ext.P2 inquiry report, without addressing the deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner. 3.83. W.P.(C)No.25618/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Pulpatta Grama Panchayat. They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from the arbitrary refixing of boundaries without considering the natural boundaries. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission, without considering the objections, issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order. 3.84. W.P.(C)No.25718/2025: The petitioners are residents of Ward No.28 in the Kochi Municipal Corporation. They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation, resulting from the use of inconsistent and outdated population figures. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 final delimitation order, without hearing the petitioners or considering their objections. 3.85. W.P.(C)No.22044/2025: The petitioner is a resident of the Kallar Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). The political party in power submitted its objection to the delimitation proposal, as evidenced by Ext.P3 order, alleging inaccuracies in the ward boundaries. Even though the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P4 order, partially addressing the modifications suggested in Ext.P3 order, in Ext.P5 final notification, the modifications in Ext.P3 order were accepted in their entirety, without any justification or reason. 3.86. W.P.(C)No.21041/2025: The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.3 of the Nadapuram Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). In response to the delimitation proposal, some political parties submitted their objections. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer submitted Ext.P3 report, recommending the objections be accepted, which the District Election Officer endorsed. Even though the Secretary of the Panchayat submitted Ext.P4 report, the Delimitation Commission discarded the report and the objections, and issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order, re-determining the boundaries of wards as per Ext.P3 report. 3.87. W.P.(C)No.23512/2025: The petitioner is the Secretary of Uduma Block Committee and a resident of the Pullur Periya Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). Even though the Secretary of the Panchayat submitted Ext.P4 report, the Delimitation Commission discarded the report and the objections, and issued Ext.P7 final delimitation order, re-determining the boundaries of wards as per Ext.P3 report. 3.87. W.P.(C)No.23512/2025: The petitioner is the Secretary of Uduma Block Committee and a resident of the Pullur Periya Grama Panchayat (6th respondent). The petitioner and other residents had submitted their objections to the delimitation proposal. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission, after conducting a hearing, issued Ext.P2 order incorporating the changes suggested by the ruling political party. Consequently, Ext.P3 final delimitation order was issued, confirming Ext.P2 order. 3.88. W.P.(C)No.22474/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Manjeri Municipality (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and population distribution. The petitioners had explained the fallacies in the proposal to the Inquiry Officer, who also conducted field visits. The Secretary of the Municipality had also submitted Ext.P4 revised appendices. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order, without rectifying the objections raised by the petitioners. 3.89. W.P.(C)No.21879/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Kayakkodi Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to the irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. Although the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the District Election Officer, it was not made available to the petitioners. Despite the petitioners reiterating their objections during the hearing, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order, confirming the proposal. 3.90. W.P.(C)No.23336/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Thazhekode Grama Panchayat (5th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. The Delimitation Commission conducted a hearing and called for a report from the Inquiry Officer. Nonetheless, the report was not made available to the petitioner, and the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P8 final delimitation order, without rectifying the illegalities pointed out in the objection. 3.91. W.P.(C)No.23888/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Erattupetta Municipality (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation resulting from the inaccuracies in the digital mapping. The petitioners explained the fallacies in the proposal to the Inquiry Officer during his field visits. Consequently, a public hearing was held, and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to investigate the objections. The Secretary of the Municipality also submitted Ext.P4 appendices, confirming the defects. The petitioners explained the fallacies in the proposal to the Inquiry Officer during his field visits. Consequently, a public hearing was held, and an Inquiry Officer was appointed to investigate the objections. The Secretary of the Municipality also submitted Ext.P4 appendices, confirming the defects. Nevertheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order, failing to address the objections raised by the petitioners. Furthermore, the Election Commission passed Ext.P10 order, finalising the voters' list based on Ext.P5 order. 3.92. W.P.(C)No.25495/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Kolacherry Grama Panchayat, objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to the arbitrary fixation of the boundaries and disregarding the natural geographical features. The said exercise will cause significant inconvenience to voters and result in a large variance in population among wards. Despite the Inquiry Officer investigating the matter and submitting a report, and the petitioners being heard, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order without making any alterations to the proposal. 3.93. W.P.(C)No.26661/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.18 of the Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat, falling within the jurisdiction of the Kothamangalam Block Panchayat (7th respondent), had, along with other residents, filed objections to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. Even though the Inquiry Officer submitted Ext.P5 proceedings, recommending changes to the proposal, as reflected in Ext.P7 communication, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P9 order, which only partially addressed the objections. Later, by Exts.P12 and P15 orders further changes were unilaterally made without any authority. After that, the 7th respondent submitted an amended Ext.P16 delimitation report, which was accepted and resulted in the issuance of Ext.P17 final delimitation order, without giving due weight to the objections. 3.94. W.P.(C)No.27853/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Mangad Division of the Kollam Municipal Corporation (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. Although the Inquiry Officer had submitted a report, and the 4th respondent conducted a hearing and assured rectification of the errors, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P5 final delimitation order, disregarding all objections raised by the petitioners. 3.95. W.P.(C)No.22558/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Koduvally Municipality (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were fundamental irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. 3.95. W.P.(C)No.22558/2025: The petitioners are the residents of the Koduvally Municipality (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were fundamental irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation. The Inquiry Officers submitted Ext.P10 inquiry report, endorsing the objections raised by the petitioners. But, the 8th respondent submitted Ext.P11 letter stating that no changes are necessary. Despite Ext.P11 letter, the number of houses in some wards were changed as per Exts.P13, P13a and P13b revised appendices. Accordingly, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P14 final delimitation order, without addressing the objections raised by the petitioners. 3.96. W.P.(C)No.45386/2024: The petitioner, a resident of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation (5th respondent), had objected to the delimitation proposal, pointing out the difference in building numbers. The petitioner had further contended that the amendment is a colourable exercise of legislative power. The formula used to calculate the population is unworkable, as it contained exaggerated figures that do not accurately reflect the actual population. The petitioner has also highlighted discrepancies in the proposed allotment of residential buildings to new wards, as noted in Appendix 5 of Ext.P7, that some buildings are not accounted for, while others are in excess. The delimitation exercise is a mala fide attempt to alter the wards, which would reduce the number of reserved wards for the Scheduled Castes, in violation of constitutional mandates. 3.97. W.P.(C)No.21675/2025: The petitioners are voters, ward members, and elected representatives from various Grama Panchayats. The petitioners objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds of outdated census data, flawed methodology for estimating population, numerous inaccuracies in ward boundaries, residential building numbers, and house allocations. In some cases, the on-site inquiries confirmed that the petitioners' objections were genuine. However, the Delimitation Commission issued Exts.P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P12, P15, P18, P22, P26, P29, P31, P33, P37, P38, P40, and P43 final delimitation orders, without addressing the irregularities or implementing the recommendations made in the inquiry reports. 3.98. W.P.(C)No.25273/2025: The petitioners are the elected ward members of the Payyavoor Grama Panchayat (5th respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. The petitioners also filed W.P.(C)No.46010/2024 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment, directing the Delimitation Commission to consider the objections. In response, the Delimitation Commission issued Exts.P9 and P10 orders, making certain amendments. They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. The petitioners also filed W.P.(C)No.46010/2024 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment, directing the Delimitation Commission to consider the objections. In response, the Delimitation Commission issued Exts.P9 and P10 orders, making certain amendments. However, the Delimitation Commission, without any request or inquiry, issued Ext.P11 order nullifying Ext.P10 order, and by making further amendments to Ext.P9 order. 3.99. W.P.(C)No.25992/2025: The petitioner is a resident of the Thennala Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal due to irregularities in ward boundaries and the allocation of houses. Although the petitioner was called for a hearing, no oral submission was permitted. Instead, written objections were collected from several people from different Panchayats and, thereafter, Ext.P5 final delimitation order was issued. 3.100. W.P.(C)No.20908/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Division No.37 of Guruvayoor, objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in the ward boundaries and house allocation due to the consideration of flats as residential units, despite they being owned by Non-Resident Indians for pilgrimage purposes. The District Election Officer and the District Collector had raised concerns about the criteria used for delimitation. Ext.P4 RTI information reveals the disproportionate number of voters in some wards, which supports the petitioner's objection. Nevertheless, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P3 final delimitation order, without giving due consideration to Ext.P2 or the objection raised by the petitioner. 3.101. W.P.(C)No.28293/2025: The petitioner, a resident of Ward No.XVI of the Perumkadavila Grama Panchayat (2nd respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal because there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to inaccuracies in the digital mapping. In Exts.P8 and P9 objections, the petitioner and other residents also objected to the naming of the ward after a family, 'Thathamala'. Nonetheless, the Delimitation Commission rejected the objections. By Ext.P11 judgment, this Court left open the right to challenge the naming of the ward. The petitioner further filed Ext.P13 representation, which was not considered on its merits. The Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P15 report stating that no changes were necessary. After that, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P16 final delimitation order, without considering the petitioner’s objection. 3.102. W.P.(C)No.23427/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Kulasekharapuram Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent). The petitioner further filed Ext.P13 representation, which was not considered on its merits. The Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P15 report stating that no changes were necessary. After that, the Delimitation Commission passed Ext.P16 final delimitation order, without considering the petitioner’s objection. 3.102. W.P.(C)No.23427/2025: The petitioners are residents of the Kulasekharapuram Grama Panchayat (3rd respondent). They objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to inaccuracies in the digital mapping. Although the Delimitation Commission and the Panchayat heard the petitioners, no action has been taken by the respondents to cure the irregularities. 3.103. W.P.(C)No.28393/2025: The petitioner, a resident of the Pazhavangadi constituency of Ranni Block Panchayat (4th respondent), objected to the delimitation proposal on the grounds that there were irregularities in ward boundaries and house allocation due to inaccuracies in the digital mapping. Consequently, the Delimitation Commission issued Ext.P2 final delimitation order by altering the proposal and including Mothiravayal Ward No.11, thereby increasing the population of the Pazhavangadi division. The alteration made in Ext.P2 order is in contravention of the guidelines. Though the petitioner has not filed an objection, he is directly approaching this Court because the final order is patently illegal. 4. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT: The Secretary of the Delimitation Commission (4th respondent) has filed counter-affidavits in some writ petitions and adopted the same counter- affidavit in the remaining writ petitions. The 4th respondent has contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Since the 4th respondent has published the final delimitation orders, and in wake of Article 243-O(a) of the Constitution, read with Section s 10 (3) and 10(3A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, there is a legal bar for this Court to examine the correctness of the final delimitation order. The order has the force of law, and it cannot be questioned in any court. Article 243-O(a) is pari materia with Article 329(a) of the Constitution. Likewise, Article 329(a) is pari materia with Article 328 of the Constitution. Articles 82 and 170 provide for the readjustment of the division of each State into constituencies. Article 243-C relates to Panchayats in the above regard. Article 243-O(a) is pari materia with Article 329(a) of the Constitution. Likewise, Article 329(a) is pari materia with Article 328 of the Constitution. Articles 82 and 170 provide for the readjustment of the division of each State into constituencies. Article 243-C relates to Panchayats in the above regard. The Delimitation Act, 2002, was enacted, inter alia, to provide for readjustment of allocation of seats in the House of People, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of each State, the division of States and Union Territories having Legislative Assemblies into territorial constituencies for election to the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies of the States and the Union Territories. Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is analogous to Section s 9 and 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that delimitation orders shall not be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others, 1967 KHC 554, the Supreme Court held that orders of delimitation are analogous to laws made by Parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution. A delimitation order shall not be made a matter of controversy in any court. They are not merely administrative directions. The Supreme Court and the High Courts have repeatedly reiterated the above legal principle. Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was amended by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2004, increasing the minimum and maximum number of seats in the Panchayats by one each. Corresponding amendment was also made to Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fixing of Strength) Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the State Government has published G.O. (P) No.49/2024/LSGD dated 10.09.2024, notifying the total number of seats in a Panchayat to be filled by direct election. The Delimitation Commission has issued Ext.P1 guidelines for the delimitation of constituencies in Panchayats and for determining their boundaries. The draft delimitation proposal was duly notified. Sufficient time was provided to all the parties to file their objections to the delimitation proposals. As per Ext.P1 guidelines, the District Election Officers were appointed to inquire into the objections. Subsequently, district-wise public hearings were conducted throughout the State, and all the objectors were heard. The draft delimitation proposal was duly notified. Sufficient time was provided to all the parties to file their objections to the delimitation proposals. As per Ext.P1 guidelines, the District Election Officers were appointed to inquire into the objections. Subsequently, district-wise public hearings were conducted throughout the State, and all the objectors were heard. The Delimitation Commission, after analysing the delimitation proposals, objections, suggestions, reports of the Inquiry Officers and information received at the time of public hearings, have issued the delimitation orders in respect of 940 Grama Panchayats in the State on 15.05.2025. The same were published in the Kerala Gazette (Extraordinary) on 19.05.2025. The delimitation orders have become law. Therefore, the writ petitions may be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. In light of the preliminary objection raised by the Delimitation Commission regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, this Court heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Delimitation Commission, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State of Kerala and the learned Senior Counsel/ Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition on the preliminary objection. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION: 6. Sri. Deepu Lal Mohan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Delimitation Commission, reiterated the contentions in the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. He drew the attention of this Court to Sections 6 and 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. He submitted that the earlier delimitation exercise was carried out in 2010. The present exercise is being carried out for those Panchayats that were in existence before the 2011 census and for which no delimitation exercise was conducted after the 2011 census. The exercise is being carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 2(10) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the analogous Section 69 of the Kerala Municipality Act . He contended that the delimitation order has the force of law. On account of the legal bar under Articles 243-O(a), 243-ZG and 329(a) of the Constitution, this Court may not interfere with the delimitation order. He contended that the delimitation order has the force of law. On account of the legal bar under Articles 243-O(a), 243-ZG and 329(a) of the Constitution, this Court may not interfere with the delimitation order. He relied on the case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others, State of U.P. and others v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others, [1995 KHC 605 : AIR 1995 SC 1512 ], Anugrah Narain Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and others, [1996 KHC 1534 : (1996) 6 SCC 303 )], Association of Resident of Mhow (ROM) and another v. Delimitation Commission of India and others, [2009 KHC 4598], State of Goa and another v. Fouziya lmtiaz Shaikh and another, [2021 KHC 6161], Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas v. Union of India, [2023 KHC 1046], Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others, [ (2006) 8 SCC 352 ], Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2022 KHC 6527] and State of A.P. and others v. McDowell & Co. and others, [1996) 3 SCC 709]; that of this Court in Chief Electoral Officer v. Sunny Joseph and others, [2005 KHC 1349], Kunhabdulla v. State of Kerala, [2000 KHC 593], Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. State of Kerala, [2025 (4) KHC SN 25] and Nanu M.K. and others v. State Delimitation Commission, Tvm and others, [ 2010 (3) KHC 914 ]; that of the Bombay High Court in Anant v. State Election Commission of Maharashtra and Others, [2022 SCC OnLine Bom.1434] and Sameer v. State of Maharashtra and others, [ 2020 (5) Mh.LJ 455 ] and that of the Madras High Court in Bar Association Pudukottai v. Chief Electoral Officer, Secretary to Government, Public (Elections) Department, Chennai and others, [AIR 2015 Mad.274]. In his reply submission, he also placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh and others v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and another, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140], Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India and others, [2011) 1 SCC 228] and R.C.Poudyal v. Union of India and others, [(1994) Supp (1) SCC 324], and the judgments of this Court in Thomas Jacob v. State of Kerala and others, [2005 KHC 1211] and K.K.Balan v. Chairman (State Election Commission) and others, [W.A.No.1082/2010] in support of his contentions. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions may be dismissed as not maintainable. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL/COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITIONS: 7.(i) Sri. Mohammed Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in a batch of writ petitions, opened the submissions on behalf of the petitioners. He contended that the writ petitions are maintainable in law. There is no absolute bar for judicial review in a delimitation matter. The principles laid down in N.P.Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others, [1952 KHC 302] and Meghraj Kothari, that the courts should adopt a keep its hands off approach, has been diluted after the exposition of the basic structure doctrine in the celebrated judgment in Kesavananda Bharati and others v. State of Kerala and another, [1973 KHC 800]. Now, judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, where even Parliament’s actions are subject to constitutional scrutiny. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Delimitation Commission that the delimitation orders cannot be called in question in courts is untenable. He submitted that, in State of U.P. and others v. Pradhan Sangh Khesttra Samiti and others, the Supreme Court had declined interference only because elections were underway, which is not the position in the cases at hand. In the present cases, the election process has not yet commenced. The rationale underlying the Court's strict approach was not to exclude judicial review per se, but to ensure that elections proceed without delay. Courts can intervene in electoral matters during the process, where such interventions are helpful rather than obstruct the elections or where mala fides, arbitrariness or a breach of law is demonstrated. Judicial restraint in electoral matters is a self-imposed restriction, but not an absolute bar. Election petitions are not a remedy to challenge delimitation orders under the residuary ground under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because even if the election of the returned candidate is declared void, the defective delimitation order would remain, leaving its rectification entirely at the discretion of the Delimitation Commission. Article 243-O cannot be a shield to protect the Commission from judicial scrutiny. Article 243-O cannot be a shield to protect the Commission from judicial scrutiny. He invited the attention of this Court to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh and others, [2005 KHC 1894], Union Territory of Ladakh and others v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference, Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India, [2024 KHC 6414], Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam v. Secretary, Governors Secretariat and others, Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, [2000 KHC 642 : (2000) 8 SCC 216 ] and N.P.Ponnuswami and others, the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prithvi Raj v. State Election Commission, Punjab and others, [AIR 2007 P&H 178] and Rajesh Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and others, (MANU/PH/2539/2023) and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.Fakruddin and others v. Government of A.P. and others, (MANU/AP/0011/1996), to bolster his submissions that the writ petitions are maintainable. (ii) Sri. Mohammed Shafi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in a batch of writ petitions, argued that, for the respondents to canvass the position of legal bar under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, there should be no violation of the principles of natural justice, which is very much existent in the instant batch of cases. The respondents have not acted reasonably. They have made a mockery of the entire delimitation process. He pointed out the various factual aspects and contended that the final delimitation orders are a farce. He argued that since some of the petitioners had no grievance against the delimitation proposals, they had not filed any objections to the proposals. Surprisingly, despite objections raised by some individuals, the Delimitation Commissioner has issued final delimitation orders that are entirely contradictory to the proposal. Therefore, the writ petitions may be entertained; otherwise, the petitioners will be denied an opportunity to challenge the final delimitation orders. This Court may direct the Delimitation Commissioner to consider the objections raised by the petitioners and pass fresh delimitation orders, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. (iii) Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel, and Sri.V.K.Rafeek, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in a batch of writ petitions, submitted that the petitioner had filed his objections to Ext.P4 draft proposal, and a hearing was conducted. (iii) Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel, and Sri.V.K.Rafeek, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in a batch of writ petitions, submitted that the petitioner had filed his objections to Ext.P4 draft proposal, and a hearing was conducted. Nevertheless, without assigning any reason, Ext.P8 final delimitation order has been passed confirming the draft proposal. He read out the various clauses in the guidelines and contended that the final order had been passed in violation of the guidelines. He, too, relied on the decision in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod to fortify the point that there is a bar to interfere with the final delimitation order only if there is an imminent election; if not, this Court can very well exercise its power of judicial review. The Delimitation Commission is exercising an administrative function under Section 10 (2)(c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, they are bound to consider all objections, hear the parties and pass a reasoned order. The impugned orders are bereft of any reason; instead, the reasons are only reflected in the counter affidavit, which are unsustainable in law. He placed emphasis on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978 KHC 478] and that of this Court in K.T.Eldhose v. State of Kerala and others, [2020 KHC 813]. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Shaw Et Al. v. Reno, Attorney General et al., [509 US 630 (1993)], and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Boundary Commission for England, [1983 WLF 458 : (1983) 2 WLR 458 ] to bolster his contentions. (iv) Sri.R.T.Pradeep argued that the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition does not hold good, considering the clear cleavage brought out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms & another v. Union of India & others, [ 2024 INSC 113 ] between a plenary legislation and subordinate legislation. The constitutional protection with respect to laws relating to the delimitation of constituencies and the allotment of seats is available only for laws brought into existence by way of plenary legislation, which has the seal of approval of the legislature. The constitutional protection with respect to laws relating to the delimitation of constituencies and the allotment of seats is available only for laws brought into existence by way of plenary legislation, which has the seal of approval of the legislature. Whereas an order notified in the gazette regarding the delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats under Section 10 (3A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is elevated to the position of a subordinate legislation, but can never be exalted to the position of a plenary legislation. The power of judicial review cannot be excluded by violating the basic structure doctrine; therefore, the court conceived under Section 10 (3A) of the above Act will not take in the constitutional courts. He submitted that the decision in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod has been rendered after referring to Meghraj Kothari, State of Goa and another v. Fouziya Imitiaz Shaikh and another and Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam, holding that an order of the Delimitation Commission can be challenged on the ground of manifest illegality. Hence, Meghraj Kothari is no longer good law, and the writ petitions are maintainable. (v) Sri. Mohammed Raoof also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod and the decisions in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and others, [ (1987) 1 SCC 124 ], L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, [ (1997) 3 SCC 261 ], and that of this Court in Ciza Thomas (Dr.) v. State of Kerala, [2025 KHC 1763] to canvass the proposition that the writ petitions are maintainable. (vi) Sri.R.S.Lakshman submitted that the writ petition he is appearing in only pertains to changing the name of the wards, which does not fall within the purview of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002. As the guidelines provide the manner in which wards have to be named, there is no legal bar for this Court to interfere with the final delimitation order. He relied on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Abdul Gafoor, [ 2025 (2) KLT 435 ], as well as that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Goa and another v. Fouziya Imitiaz Shaikh and another and Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod. (vii) Sri. He relied on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Abdul Gafoor, [ 2025 (2) KLT 435 ], as well as that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Goa and another v. Fouziya Imitiaz Shaikh and another and Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod. (vii) Sri. P.C.Sasidharan argued that, even though the inquiry officer found the objections raised by the petitioners, in the cases in which he is appearing, to be tenable, the same were not accepted by the Delimitation Commission. A final delimitation order is only an administrative order. There is no prohibition in this Court to exercising its power of judicial review. Hence, the delimitation orders may be set aside. (viii) Sri.John K.George reiterated the contentions of the earlier counsel appearing for the petitioners. He argued that if the delimitation commission fails to follow the procedure laid down in the guidelines, particularly by not conducting a local inspection, then the delimitation order is vitiated. (ix) Sri. Jayakumar Namboothiri contended that, although this Court had directed the respondents to consider the objections filed by the petitioners in the cases in which he is appearing, they were not considered. The respondents have contemptuously violated the directions of this Court. The petitioners' proposal was also not accepted. (x) Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, also reiterated the contentions of earlier counsel for the petitioners. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Parashotam Dass, [ (2025) 5 SCC 786 ]. (xi) Sri.P.K.Mohammed Jameel argued that the petitioner, in the case in which he is appearing, had submitted an objection to the draft notification, which was accepted. Surprisingly, another order was passed, that too, by the Delimitation Commission, without hearing the petitioner. (xii) Sri.T.B.Hood relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and Kishorchandra v. Chhanganlal Rathod and contended that there is no bar in this Court exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The preliminary objection raised by the State Delimitation Commissioner is to be rejected. (xiii) Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in W.P.(C) No. 28293/2025, argued that the writ petition is filed challenging the naming of the ward, 'Thatamala’, which is the name of a family. The name cannot be used. The preliminary objection raised by the State Delimitation Commissioner is to be rejected. (xiii) Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in W.P.(C) No. 28293/2025, argued that the writ petition is filed challenging the naming of the ward, 'Thatamala’, which is the name of a family. The name cannot be used. Therefore, there is no legal bar in this Court to interfere with the final delimitation order. (xiv) Sri.P.E.Sajal relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No.650/2025 in Association for Democratic Reforms and Others v. Election Commission of India and the decision in Kishorchandra v. Chhanganlal Rathod and reiterated the contention that there is no legal bar in this Court interfering with the delimitation order. Furthermore, as the election notification has not been published, any interference by this Court will not delay the election process. It would be preferable for this Court to correct the final delimitation order, thereby avoiding further tiers of litigation. (xv) Sri. P.K. Ibrahim argued that, though the Inquiry Officer had found the objections raised by the petitioner in the case he is appearing to be valid, the Delimitation Commission had taken a contradictory view. The delimitation order is a non-speaking order and is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. (xvi) Sri. Chandrasekharan contended that the Delimitation Commissioner is obliged to consider the objections raised by all the parties and pass a reasoned order. As the final delimitation order is bereft of any reasons, the same is a nullity. He relied on the decision of this Court in Krishnankutty A. v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram and others, [2020 KHC 632] to buttress his submission. (xvii) Sri. B. Unnikrishnan, the party in person in W.P. (C) No.22222/2025, submitted that the census was not conducted in 2021. It is proposed to be conducted in 2027. The existing delimitation was based on the 2011 census. There are approximately 3-4 lakh fewer voters in the 2011 census than in the 2001 census. One assembly constituency in Kottayam has been lost. There is no necessity to carry out the exercise of delimitation, which is being done to cheat the people. The entire process is a pre-planned drama. (xviii) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions adopted the arguments advanced by the above-named learned Senior Counsel/Counsel. ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION 8. There is no necessity to carry out the exercise of delimitation, which is being done to cheat the people. The entire process is a pre-planned drama. (xviii) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions adopted the arguments advanced by the above-named learned Senior Counsel/Counsel. ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION 8. The question is whether the final delimitation orders are amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. By G.O.(P) No.36/2024/LSGD dated 14.06.2024, the Government of Kerala constituted the Delimitation Commission in the State, consisting of the State Election Commissioner and four other officers. Consequently, by Acts 14 and 15 of 2024 dated 09.07.2024, the Kerala Municipality (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, the Government of Kerala amended Section 6(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Section 6(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, respectively, increasing the minimum and maximum seats in each constituency by one seat. A corresponding amendment was also made to Section 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fixation of Strength) Rules, 1994, and notifications were issued to fix the strength of Grama/ Block/District Panchayats, as well as Municipalities/ Municipal Corporations. After that, the Government of Kerala notified that the total number of seats would be filled through direct election. The Delimitation Commission also issued guidelines for the delimitation of constituencies and for determining the boundaries. 10. Based on the guidelines, the Delimitation Commission notified the draft delimitation proposals and invited objections. In constituencies where objections/ suggestions were received, the District Election Officers ordered inquiries through Inquiry Officers, who submitted their reports. On receipt of the reports, the Delimitation Commission conducted district-wise public hearings throughout the State. After analysing the delimitation proposals, objections/ suggestions, reports of the Inquiry Officers and grievances of the objectors, the Delimitation Commission issued the final delimitation orders with respect to 941 Grama Panchayats, by increasing the constituencies by 1375; 87 Municipalities, by increasing the constituencies by 128; 6 Municipal Corporations, by increasing the constituencies by 7; 152 Block Panchayats, by increasing the constituencies by 187; and 14 District Panchayats, by increasing the constituencies by 15. The final delimitation notifications have been published in the Kerala Gazette. 11. The final delimitation notifications have been published in the Kerala Gazette. 11. The final delimitation orders are assailed in these writ petitions on multiple grounds, inter alia, that the petitioners/objectors were denied a fair opportunity to submit and substantiate their objections; that the delimitation process was not carried out in a fair, transparent and legally compliant manner; that the impugned orders have been passed in contravention of the fundamental principles of democracy and participatory governance; that the impugned orders are vitiated due to procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contented that the mandatory procedure relating to public notices, invitation of objections and conduct of hearing were not fully followed; that the Inquiry Officers failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioners properly; that the demarcation of boundaries were erroneous, resulting in irrational boundary formations; and that misallocation of house numbers and unequal distribution of voters among wards have culminated in the denial of the petitioners' right to fair and effective representation in the local self-government institutions. 12. On the other hand, the Delimitation Commission has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions, contending that they are barred by virtue of Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution, Section s 10 (3) and (3A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Section 10 (2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, as well as the authoritative interpretation of the above provisions in a plethora of precedents rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the various High Courts. 13. Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution, captioned “The Panchayats” and “The Municipalities” were incorporated in the Constitution by the Seventy-Third and Seventy-Fourth Amendment Acts, 1992, w.e.f. 24.04.1993 and 01.06.1993, respectively. The above provisions defined the constitutional framework governing Panchayats and Municipalities, including their establishment, composition, reservation of seats, duration, disqualification of members, powers, authority and responsibilities. They also contain express provisions regulating elections to these bodies, as well as a constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters. 14. The above provisions defined the constitutional framework governing Panchayats and Municipalities, including their establishment, composition, reservation of seats, duration, disqualification of members, powers, authority and responsibilities. They also contain express provisions regulating elections to these bodies, as well as a constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters. 14. Article 243-O of the Constitution, which is pari materia with Article 243-ZG, is reproduced below for ready reference and reads thus: “Article 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything 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.243K 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]”. 15. Articles 243-O and 243-ZG correspond to Article 329 of the Constitution. 16. Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, deals with the division of panchayats into constituencies, and the same reads as under: “10. Division of Panchayats into Constituencies- (1) The Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute a Delimitation Commission consisting of the State Election Commission as the Chairman and four Officers, not below the rank of Secretary to Government, as members. The said Delimitation Commission shall, as soon as may be after fixing the strength of a Panchayat at any level under Section 6 and after determining the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and for Women, - (a) divide every Panchayat into as many constituencies as there are seats and fix the boundaries of such constituencies: Provided that the population of each constituency shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area: Provided further that where the territorial area of a Block Panchayat is divided into constituencies, the boundaries of such constituencies shall not divide any constituency of any Village Panchayat and where the territorial area of a District Panchayat is divided into constituencies the boundaries of such constituencies shall not divide any constituency of any Village Panchayat or of any Block Panchayat, into more than one division. (1A) The officers for the functioning for the Delimitation Commission, procedure for the conduct of meeting including quorum and other related matters shall be such, as may be prescribed. (1B) The State Election Commission or the officer authorized by it in this behalf shall, on determination by the Government of the number of seats to be reserved, earmarked and constituency or constituencies to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Women. (2) The Delimitation Commission shall.- (a) publish the proposals of the Delimitation Commission in respect of the matters mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1), with a notice specifying the date on or after which the proposals will be considered by it and by inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposals before a date specified in the notice, by affixing copies thereof on the notice board of the office of the Panchayat concerned and in such conspicuous places within the Panchayat area concerned; (b) publish in the Gazette and in any two local newspapers having wide circulation within the Panchayat area concerned the fact of publication under clause (a); (c) consider all objections and suggestions that the Delimitation Commission may have received before the date so specified; and (d) delimit the constituencies. (2A) The officer authorized by the State Election Commission in this behalf shall determine, as to which constituency, the constituencies reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or women shall be allotted according to rotation, by draw of lots at the time, date and place fixed by the Commission in this behalf, by notification. (2B) After the draw of lots under sub-section (2A), the State Election Commission or the officer authorized by it shall issue an order determining the constituency reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes or Women. (3) An order made by the State Election Commission or the officer authorized by it or the Delimitation Commission shall not be called in question in any Court of law. (emphasis supplied) 17. Section 69 (2A) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which is in pari materia with Section 10 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and mandates that every order issued by the Delimitation Commission concerning the division of constituencies and determination of boundaries under the said section shall be published in the Gazette and shall have the force of law. 18. 18. Section S.9 and 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, read as follows: “9. Delimitation of constituencies.— (1) The Commission shall, in the manner herein provided, then, distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each State and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State as readjusted on the basis of 1971 census to single-member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the census figures as ascertained, at the census held in the year 2011, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, the provisions of the Act specified in section 8 and the following provisions, namely:— (a) all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities of communication and public convenience; (b) every assembly constituency shall be so delimited as to fall wholly within one parliamentary constituency; (c) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Castes shall be distributed in different parts of the State and located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total is comparatively large; and (d) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the Scheduled Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be located in areas where the proportion of their population to the total is the largest. (2) The Commission shall- (a) publish its proposals for the delimitation of constituencies, together with the dissenting proposals, if any, of any associate member who desires publication thereof, in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of all the States concerned and also in such other manner as it thinks fit; (b) specify a date on or after which the proposals shall be further considered by it; (c) consider all objections and suggestions which may have been received by it before the date so specified, and for the purpose of such consideration, hold one or more public sittings at such place or places in each State as it thinks fit; and (d) thereafter by one or more orders determine — (i) the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies; and (ii) the delimitation of assembly constituencies, of each State. 10. 10. Publication of orders and their date of operation.- (1) The Commission shall cause each of its orders made under section 8 or section 9 to be published in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned and simultaneously cause such orders to be published at least in two vernacular newspapers and publicize on radio, television and other possible media available to the public and after such publication in the Official Gazettes of the States concerned, every District Election Officer shall cause to be affixed, the Gazette version of such orders relating to the area under his jurisdiction, on a conspicuous part of his office for public notice. (2) Upon publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any court. (emphasis supplied) 19. The afore referred constitutional and statutory provisions, namely, Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution, Section 10 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 69 (2A) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and Section 10 (2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, explicitly declare that a final delimitation order, once notified, shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question before any court. Furthermore, Article 243-O(b) mandates that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided by any law enacted by the Legislature of a State. 20. While interpreting Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meghraj Kothari, laid down the following principles: "19. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before the date specified. Once the orders made by the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under S.8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under S.8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10 (2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) were to be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court. 20. It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published under Section 10 (1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the same. *** *** *** 23. Similarly it may be said here that once the Delimitation Commission has made orders under S.8 and 9 and they have been published under S.10 (1), the orders are to have the same effect as if they were law made by Parliament itself". (emphasis supplied) 21. Similarly, in State of U.P. and others v. Pradhan Sangh Khesttra Samiti and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Articles 243- C, 243-K and 243-O of the Constitution, the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, enunciated thus: “11. *** *** *** It is for the Government to decide in what manner the panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area will be delimited. It is not for the Court to dictate the manner in which the same would be done. So long as the panchayat areas and the Constituencies are delimited in conformity with the constitutional provisions or without committing a breach thereof, the Courts cannot interfere with the same……………………. What is more objectionable in the approach of the High Court is that although clause (a) of Art.243 O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the Courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Art.243K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them ”. 22. 22. Likewise, in Association of Resident of Mhow (ROM) and another v. Delimitation Commission of India and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provisions of the Delimitation Act, has held as follows: “18. The most important aspect of the matter required to be borne in mind is that the proposals for delimitation published under S.9 (2) of the Act are with regard to the whole of the State. The proposals are not a constituency centric one. Determining the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies is a very complex and lengthy process. S.9 (1) of the Act mandates the Commission as to what are the factors apart from the provisions of the Constitution and provisions of the Act required to be taken into consideration which are noticed herein above. S.9(2) mandates the Commission to publish its proposals for the delimitation of the constituencies in the manner provided thereunder. It is true, determination of the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies, as the case may be, shall be only after consideration of all objections and suggestions which may have been received by the Commission before the specified date for which purposes the Commission may hold one or more public sittings at such place or places in each State as it thinks fit. The Commission is not required to hold public meeting in each and every Parliamentary Constituency. What the Commission required is to consider the objections and suggestions for its proposals before determining the delimitation of the constituencies in the entire State. The proposals cannot emanate from any interested person. The distinction between the Commission's proposals and objections and suggestions in response to such proposals is to be borne in mind. Every suggestion or objection cannot ultimately result in any fresh proposal by the Commission. The Commission is not under any legal or Constitutional obligation to go on issuing any revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals. Every suggestion or objection cannot ultimately result in any fresh proposal by the Commission. The Commission is not under any legal or Constitutional obligation to go on issuing any revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals. Since the exercise of the delimitation is not with reference to any particular constituency, the suggestions or objections, as the case may be, in respect of one constituency may have their impact at least on one or more of the adjoining constituencies The Commission's power to determine delimitation of the constituency is not unlimited but is structured by the provisions of the Act and more particularly by S.8 and 9 of the Act apart from the Constitution (Eighty fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 and Constitution (Eighty seventh Amendment) Act, 2003 which have, inter alia, amended Arts.81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. The effect of these amendments to the Constitution inter alia is that each Parliamentary Constituency in each State shall be an integral multiple of the number of seats comprised therein, and no Assembly Constituency shall extend to more than one Parliamentary Constituency. *** *** *** 22. It is true the observations made in this judgment "that neither the delimitation of the Panchayat area nor the constituencies in the said area and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given" may lend some support to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there could be a challenge in case where final determination of delimitation of constituencies was made without inviting any objections whatsoever. But that is not the ratio of the judgment ” *** *** *** 23. The principal contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Meghraj Kothari was rendered before the enunciation of the doctrine of 'basic structure' in Kesavananda Bharati. In the latter decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the ratio in Meghraj Kothari stands diluted, and there is no legal bar for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction and interfere with the final delimitation orders. 24. In the latter decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the ratio in Meghraj Kothari stands diluted, and there is no legal bar for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction and interfere with the final delimitation orders. 24. The above contention stands conclusively answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Chief Electoral Officer v. Sunny Joseph, in the following manner: “10. Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on the decisions in Kesavananda Bharathi's case ( AIR 1973 SC 1461 ), State of Rajasthan v. Union of India ( AIR 1977 SC 1361 ) and S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ( AIR 1994 SC 1918 ) and other decisions and contended that since Art. 226 of the Constitution being basic structure of the Constitution judicial review of orders passed under S.8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 cannot be excluded from the purview of judicial review. Counsel submitted even in spite of Art. 323 A and 365 exclusions of jurisdiction of court was declared illegal. Relying on the decision of the apex court in L. Chandrakumar's case ( AIR 1997 SC 1125 ) counsel also submitted that exclusion of jurisdiction under 10th Schedule was held to be not binding on courts. In any view counsel submitted that any law as understood under Art.329 (a) of the Constitution can be challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We find it unable to agree with the proposition urged by counsel for the petitioner. Basic structure theory enunciated in Kesavananda Bharathi's case, came up for consideration before the apex court in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain ( AIR 1975 SC 2299 ) and in Para.667 of the judgment, Justice Shri Y. V. Chandrachud dealing with the argument of the counsel that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution noticed that when the Constitution was originally enacted it expressly excluded judicial review in a large variety of important matters. Reference was made to Art.31 (4), 31 (6), 136 (2), 227 (4), 262 (2) and 329 (a) of the Constitution of India. Reference was made to Art.31 (4), 31 (6), 136 (2), 227 (4), 262 (2) and 329 (a) of the Constitution of India. The court noticed that each of the provisions has a purpose behind it but those provisions would show that the Constitution did not regard judicial review as an indispensable measure of the legality or propriety of every determination. Art. 136 (2) expressly took away the power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from the decisions of any court or Tribunal constituted by a law relating to the Armed Forces. Art.262 (2) authorised the Parliament to make a law providing that the Supreme Court or any other court shall have no jurisdiction over certain river disputes. Reference was also made to Art.103 (1) and 329(b). Art. 102 prescribes disqualifications for membership of the Parliament. It was noticed that by Art. 103 (1) any question arising under Art. 102 as to whether a member of the Parliament has become subject to any disqualification has to be referred to the President whose decision is final. Further President is required by Art. 103 (2) to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and to act according to its opinion. The court noticed that in a vital matter pertaining to the election for membership of the Parliament the framers of the Constitution had left the decision to the judgment of the executive. Further Art.327 and 328 give power to the Parliament and the State Legislatures to provide by law for all matters relating to elections to the respective legislatures including the preparation of electoral rolls and the delimitation of constituencies. It also noticed that by Art 329 (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be called in question in any court. Referring to Art. 329 (b) the court carved out that the article provides that no election to Parliament or the State Legislature shall be called in question except election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Judicial review there can be excluded in certain limited areas though it is considered to be the basic structure of the Constitution. 12. Judicial review there can be excluded in certain limited areas though it is considered to be the basic structure of the Constitution. 12. The Constitution Bench of the apex court later in L. Chandrakumar Union of India and others ( 1997 (3) SCC 261 ) after referring to the decisions of the apex court in Kasavananda Bharat's case. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of Enda ( 1980 (3) SCC 625 ) and Indira Nehra Gandhi's case, noticed that Art 329 as an example and pointed out that judicial review cannot be considered to a part of the basic structure so far as election to the Legislature is concerned in the above decision apex court held that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Art. 226 and the Supreme Court under Art 32 of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure and therefore ordinarily the power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded Constitutional Bench therefore noticed that in extraordinary circumstances for example for purity of election and other related matters judicial review cannot be considered to be part of basic structure and same can be ousted by law.” 25. In State of Goa and another v. Fouziya lmtiaz Shaikh, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a stock of decisions concerning challenges to delimitation orders, including N.P. Ponnuswami, Laxmibai v. Collector, Nanded and others, [ (2020) 12 SCC 186 ], Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahamedabad and others, [ (2006) 8 SCC 352 ], Indrajit Barua and others v. Election Commission of India and others, [ (1985) 4 SCC 722 ], Meghraj Kothari, Association of Residents of Mhow (ROM) v. Delimitation Commission of India, etc., held that, in the context of municipal elections, the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-ZG(a) mandates that there be a judicial hands-off of the writ or any court in questioning the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA. This embargo flows from the non-obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG. It was observed that the statutory provisions governing delimitation and allotment of seats cannot, therefore, be questioned in any court. This embargo flows from the non-obstante clause contained in Article 243-ZG. It was observed that the statutory provisions governing delimitation and allotment of seats cannot, therefore, be questioned in any court. However, orders made under such statutory provisions can be questioned in courts, provided the concerned statute does not confer such orders the status of a statutory provision. Thus, any challenge to orders relating to delimitation or allotment of seats, including preparation of electoral rolls, can be challenged in the manner provided by the statutory provisions dealing with delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats. The constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG(a) applies only to the courts, not the State Election Commission, which is responsible for supervising, directing, and controlling the preparation of electoral rolls and conducting elections to municipalities. The duty of the State Election Commission is to countermand any illegal orders made by any authority, including the State Government, that delimit constituencies or allot seats to such constituencies, which can be done either before or during the electoral process, bearing in mind its constitutional duty as delineated in the provisions. 26. On the same lines, in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar , a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after reviewing the case laws on Articles 329(b) and 226, has held as under: “28. Election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. Though there is an individual or a few individuals arrayed as parties before the court but the stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.” A useful summary of conclusions based on the case law was then set out by the court as follows: “31. The founding fathers of the Constitution have consciously employed use of the words “no election shall be called in question” in the body of Section 329(b) and these words provide the determinative test for attracting applicability of Article 329(b). If the petition presented to the court “calls in question an election” the bar of Article 329(b) is attracted. The founding fathers of the Constitution have consciously employed use of the words “no election shall be called in question” in the body of Section 329(b) and these words provide the determinative test for attracting applicability of Article 329(b). If the petition presented to the court “calls in question an election” the bar of Article 329(b) is attracted. Else it is not. 32. For convenience’s sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove: (1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well- settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” 27. In addition to the well-settled legal principles laid down in the above-referred decisions, it is significant to note that the decision in Kesavananda Bharati was rendered in 1973. Articles 243-O and 243-ZG were subsequently inserted in the Constitution by the 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts, 1992, which came into force on 24.04.1993 and 01.06.1993, respectively. The above provisions expressly enshrine a bar that, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies under Article 243-K shall not be questioned in any court except through an election petition. Articles 243-O and 243-ZG have withstood scrutiny by the Courts over time and remain firmly entrenched in the Constitution. 28. On an analysis of Articles 243-O and 243-ZG read together with the statutory restrictions embodied in Section 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 69 (2A) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and Section s 9 and 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, all of which were enacted post Kesavananda Bharati era - the contention that the principles laid down in Meghraj Kothari is no longer good law, is wholly untenable. 29. The next contention raised by the petitioners is that, in light of the decision in Kishorchandra v. Chhanganlal Rathod, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that nothing that precludes the court from examining the validity of orders passed by the Delimitation Commission against the touchstone of the Constitution, particularly if the orders are found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to the constitutional values. The constitutional court can exercise the power of judicial review within a limited sphere and at an appropriate stage. The same view has been expressed in Union Territory of Ladakh and others v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and Harnek Singh v. Charanjith Singh and others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the restrictions imposed in the Constitution in delimitation matters are generally self-imposed. However, in an instance of unjust executive action or where there is an attempt to disturb a level playing field among the candidates and/or political parties with any justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are duty- bound to intervene. 30. It is noteworthy that the petitioners have not challenged the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the determination of boundaries contained in the Constitution or in the concerned statutes. The challenge raised in these writ petitions, as summarised earlier, is directed primarily against the correctness of the delimitation orders. Even on the touchstone of the principles of fairness and principles of natural justice, the petitioners do not dispute the fact that delimitation proposals and plans were duly notified, that all aggrieved persons were permitted to file their objections to the proposals, that the Inquiry Officers submitted their inquiry reports on the objections raised, that district-wise public hearings were conducted throughout the State and the objectors were heard. It was after that, following the procedure laid down in the guidelines, that the final delimitation orders were notified to the subjective satisfaction of the Delimitation Commission. 31. Fundamentally, the petitioners' grievance arises from the dissatisfaction with certain factual aspects of the delimitation, which the Delimitation Commission has addressed. Thus, the legality and correctness of the final delimitation orders, including the appreciation of objections, inquiry reports, hearing conducted, and the reasons given, involve disputed questions of fact. In any given case, the delimitation orders cannot be characterised as manifestly arbitrary, mala fide or irreconcilable with constitutional values to invoke the limited jurisdiction recognised in Kishorchandra v. Chhanganlal Rathod, Union Territory of Ladakh and others v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and Harnek Singh v. Charanjith Singh and others, since mala fides and arbitrariness cannot be lightly inferred. The mere rejection of the petitioners' objections cannot, by itself, be labelled as an arbitrary or a mala fide action. The mere rejection of the petitioners' objections cannot, by itself, be labelled as an arbitrary or a mala fide action. Moreover, a Constitution Bench rendered the decision in Meghraj Kothari and the judgments in State of Goa and another v. Fouziya lmtiaz Shaikh and another and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar were delivered by a bench of three judges. Going by the law of precedents, I am bound to follow the law laid down by the larger Benches. 32. In certain writ petitions, the petitioners have contended that, being satisfied with the proposals, they refrained from objections. However, the final delimitation orders are contradictory to the proposals. Consequently, if the writ petitions are not entertained, the petitioners would be denied the opportunity to challenge the final delimitation orders. This contention substantiates that the parties are dissatisfied with either the proposals or the final delimitation orders. If this Court is to interfere with the final delimitation orders merely at the request of a few aggrieved individuals, the delimitation process will become a never ending affair. It is perhaps for this reason that the Parliament has consciously insulated delimitation orders from judicial secrutiny, with the underlying rationale to prevent endless litigation that could paralyse the electoral process. While judicial review is sacrosanct, limited restrictions are constitutionally permissible, particularly in matters concerning elections, where finality and timely conduct of elections are of paramount importance for the democratic process. The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and the Delimitation Act, 2002, adopt criteria for determining the population divisions and constituency boundaries that are, as far as practicable, indicative rather than precise. 33. It is worthwhile to recall the observations by Earl Warren, CJ, in B.A. Reynolds case, where he remarked that it is practically impossible to arrange legislative districts in such a manner that each contains an identical number of residents, citizens, or voters; the pursuit of mathematical exactitude in proportionality is, in practice, an unworkable constitutional requirement. 34. The above principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India and others, wherein it is observed that ensuring uniformity in the value of votes is not a constitutional imperative for the conduct of a free and fair election under the constitutional dispensation. The formulation of a flawless delimitation order, based on an arithmetic proposition, is inherently impracticable. The formulation of a flawless delimitation order, based on an arithmetic proposition, is inherently impracticable. 35. In R.C.Poudyal v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “119. It is true that the right to vote is central to the right to participation in the democratic process. However, there is less consensus amongst theorists on the propriety of judicial activism in the voting area. In India, the Delimitation Laws made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, are immune from the 'judicial test of their validity and the process of allotment of seats and constituencies not liable to be called in question in any court by virtue of Article 329(a) of the Constitution. But the laws providing reservations are made under authority of other provisions of the Constitution such as those in Article 332 or clause (f) of Article 371F which latter is a special provision for Sikkim. 120. The rationale and constitutionality of clause (f) and the other provisions of the electoral laws impugned in these petitions are sought to be justified by the respondents on grounds that first, a perfect arithmetical equality of value of votes is not a constitutionally mandated imperative of democracy and, secondly, that even if the impugned provisions make a departure from the tolerance limits and the constitutionally permissible latitudes, the discriminations arising are justifiable on the basis of the historical considerations peculiar to and characteristic of the evolution of Sikkim's political institutions…………….. *** *** *** *** 182. The principle of one man, one vote envisages that there should be parity in the value of votes of electors. Such a parity though ideal for a representative democracy is difficult to achieve. There is some departure in every system following this democratic path. In the matter of delimitation of constituencies, it often happens that the population of one constituency differs from that of the other constituency and as a result although both the constituencies elect one member, the value of the vote of the elector in the constituency having lesser population is more than the value of the vote of the elector of the constituency having a larger population ” (emphasis given) 36. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India in the following words: “22. The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of India in the following words: “22. On a perusal of the aforesaid principles as laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench judgment, we are of the opinion that a right to caste vote is a valuable right but to demand any uniform value of one’s voting right through the process of delimitation, disregarding the statutory and constitutional dispensation based on historical reasons is not a justiciable right. 23. In the context of this question we must keep in mind the constitutional scheme in Part XV relating to election. Article 327 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make a law relating to delimitation of constituencies. The mandate of Article 329A is that any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies shall not be called in question in any Court. Identical provisions have been made in Section 142 of the Constitution of J & K **** 24. It is, therefore, clear that there is an express constitutional bar to any challenge being made to the delimitation law which is made under Constitutional provisions. Therefore, the substantial challenge of the appellant in this proceeding is not to be entertained by any Court, including this Court ” 31. This Court has already held relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Poudyal (supra) that ensuring uniformity in the value of votes is not a constitutionally mandated imperative of free and fair election under our constitutional dispensation. Therefore, the argument on the question of Basic Structure is also without substance and is rejected.” (emphasis given) 37. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners of the various other High Courts are persuasive particularly in light of the authoritative pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. Furthermore, the decisions in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, and Association for Democratic Reforms & another have not been rendered in the context of the delimitation process; therefore, they are not apposite to the lis at hand. 38. Furthermore, the decisions in Union of India v. Parashotam Dass, L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, and Association for Democratic Reforms & another have not been rendered in the context of the delimitation process; therefore, they are not apposite to the lis at hand. 38. In conclusion, I refer to the observations in Anugrah Narain Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering a challenge against the postponement of municipal elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh, observed as follows: “13. The answer must be emphatically in the affirmative. The bar imposed by Art.243ZG is two fold. Validity of laws relating to delimitation and allotment of seats made under Art.243ZA cannot be question in any Court. No election to a Municipality can be questioned except by an election petition. Moreover, it is well settled by now that if the election is imminent or well underway, the Court should not intervene to stop the election process. If this is allowed to be done, no election will ever take place because someone or the other will always find some excuse to move the Court and stall the elections”. On a comprehensive consideration of the facts, the materials on record, and the legal principles on the point, I find the preliminary objection raised by the Delimitation Commission to be legally tenable. In this context, I hold that the final delimitation orders are not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, I dismiss the writ petitions as not maintainable; however, the dismissal shall not, in any manner, prejudice the petitioners' rights to pursue the statutory remedies available to them under the law.