2024 INSC 579

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 579

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.7930 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.31314 of 2012)

KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHOD … APPELLANT

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in terms

whereof the Writ Petition, filed by the appellant, challenging the

delimitation exercise, which resulted into reservation of Bardoli

Legislative Assembly Constituency, Gujarat for Scheduled Caste

community was dismissed. The said constituency was reserved by the

Delimitation Commission in exercise of its powers under the

Delimitation Act, 2002.

Article 329 of the Constitution and held that there is a bar to satish kumar yadav

interference by the Court in electorate matters and as such, the

appellant’s challenge to the Delimitation Commission’s Order No.

33, dated 12.12.2006, which had received the assent of the

President of India, could not be called in question in any court of

law. In this manner, the High Court dismissed the writ petition at

the threshold on the anvil of Article 329(a) of the Constitution,

which states:

“329. 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 article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court.”

appellant’s claim is concerned, we do not deem it necessary to go

into the validity of Commission’s order as the controversy pertains

to the delimitation exercise, which was undertaken way back in the

year 2006. It is not in dispute that much water has flown under the

bridge since then, including the undertaking of a fresh

delimitation exercise by the competent authority.

Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in

exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is

entirely insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable

under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although Article 329

undeniably restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny re: validity of

any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the

allotment of seats to such constituencies, it cannot be construed

to have imposed for every action of delimitation exercise. If

judicial intervention is deemed completely barred, citizens would

not have any forum to plead their grievances, leaving them solely

at the mercy of the Delimitation Commission. As a constitutional

court and guardian of public interest, permitting such a scenario

would be contrary to the Court’s duties and the principle of

separation of powers.

decision of this Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of

T.N.1 where the Court was called upon to interpret Articles 243O

and 243ZG of the Constitution, which mirror the aforementioned

Article 329. Rejecting the contention that these provisions place a

complete bar on judicial intervention, it waw noted that a

constitutional Court can intervene for facilitating the elections

or when a case for mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power is made

out. Using this, the Court directed delimitation to be conducted

for nine new districts. Recently, a three-judge bench of this Court

in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh,2 affirmed the ratio of

the above-cited decision while discussing principles on Article

329(a), and rejected the contention which sought to prove it as per

incuriam.

settled principles regarding scope, ambit and limitations on the

exercise of judicial review in delimitation matters, there is

nothing that precludes them to check the validity of orders passed

by Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution.

If the order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable

1 (2020) 6 SCC 548, para 14. 2 (2021) 8 SCC 401, para 67.

to the constitutional values, the Court can grant the appropriate

remedy to rectify the situation.

is fully prohibited, the respondents relied upon a Constitution

Bench decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation

Commission and others3 A closer examination of the aforementioned

case, however, would show that the Court in that case restricted

judicial intervention when the same would unnecessarily delay the

election process. This is writ large from the following paragraph,

where the Court explicated the reason behind adopting the hands-off

approach:

“20. 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 Sections 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.” [emphasis supplied]

respondents’ contention regarding complete restriction on judicial

review. A constitutional court can undertake the exercise of

judicial review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage.

of the impugned judgment—to the extent it held that there is a bar

3 1966 SCC Online SC 12

to challenge the order of delimitation of constituencies is set

aside. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the High Court

keeping in view the subsequent events. However, at present, no

ground has been made out to interfere with the exercise of

delimitation of constituencies and consequential reservation

thereof, which was undertaken in the year 2006.

.........................J. (SURYA KANT)

..............…….........J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI; JULY 23, 2024.