Administrative Delimitation and Transfer of Villages Challenged on Grounds of Public Inconvenience Lack Merit.

The petitioners, residents of five villages (Dudhpur Part-II, Mahadebpur, Gonirgram Part-I, Gonirgram Part-III, and Sirpur Part II) in the Cachar district of Assam, challenged a Government Notification dated 31.12.2022

This notification transferred said villages from Cachar district to Hailakandi district as part of a delimitation exercise

The petitioners alleged that this transfer would cause extreme hardship to poor farmers and daily wage earners, forcing them to travel longer distances, cross the Barak River, and navigate poor communication links to reach administrative headquarters in Hailakandi

They further claimed the selection of these specific villages was arbitrary and lacked proper consultation

1. Whether the administrative transfer of five villages from Cachar to Hailakandi district for the purpose of delimitation was arbitrary or procedurally flawed

2. Whether individual hardship or geographical inconvenience of villagers is a sufficient legal ground to invalidate a delimitation exercise conducted under statutory authority

The court primarily considered Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which empowers the Election Commission of India (ECI) to undertake the delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies in the State of Assam

The exercise relied on the 2001 census figures and followed guidelines emphasizing physical features, existing administrative boundaries, communication facilities, public convenience, and geographical compactness

The court also noted the procedural requirement of publishing draft proposals to invite public objections before final notification

The court reasoned that the transfer was not an isolated administrative act but a consequence of the ECI’s broader delimitation mandate under Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1950

It observed that the ECI and State agencies followed a structured methodology, which included publishing a draft proposal for public feedback—a stage at which the petitioners failed to raise their objections

Regarding the petitioners' claims of hardship, the court held that once a decision is calibrated after considering relevant factors (such as geographical compactness and administrative unity), the mere personal or practical inconvenience of a group of villagers cannot override a policy decision aimed at larger constituency management

The court found no merit in the claim of arbitrariness, noting that the agencies involved were entitled to re-organize administrative units to maintain the integrity of delimitation

It held that while the residents might face genuine inconveniences due to a change in headquarters, such factors do not render a considered, statutory delimitation exercise invalid or arbitrary

The final holding affirmed that the transfer of villages for the purpose of maintaining geographically compact administrative units under the ECI's guidelines was a valid exercise of power