Full Judgment Text
1
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
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.09.2012,
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.
3. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, relied upon
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2024.08.06
14:36:21 IST
Reason:
Article 329 of the Constitution and held that there is a bar to
interference by the Court in electorate matters and as such, the
appellant’s challenge to the Delimitation Commission’s Order No.
2
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.”
4. As regards to the factual dispute and/or merits of the
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.
5. We, however, do not approve the view taken by the High
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
3
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.
6. This understanding is supported by a three-judge bench
decision of this Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of
1
T.N. 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
2
in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh , 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 .
7. Therefore, while the Courts shall always be guided by the
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.
4
to the constitutional values, the Court can grant the appropriate
remedy to rectify the situation.
8. In order to prove that any kind of judicial intervention
is fully prohibited, the respondents relied upon a Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation
3
Commission and others 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]
9. Hence, the aforementioned judgement does not support the
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.
10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, and para 3
of the impugned judgment—to the extent it held that there is a bar
3 1966 SCC Online SC 12
5
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.
6