Constitutional bar under Article 243ZG precludes judicial interference in territorial ward reorganization and delimitation.

The petitioners, a registered political party and a social worker, challenged a notification dated 01.09.2025 (published 15.09.2025) which reorganized and reconstituted the wards of the Municipal Board, Nokha.

Originally, the Board had 35 wards, increased to 45 in 2019-2020 based on the 2011 Census.

On 22.11.2024, a notification under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, was issued determining the structural composition of the wards.

The petitioners contended that the subsequent reorganization under Section 10 was illegal and arbitrary as it was conducted without a fresh census and violated population parity.

The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 243ZG of the Constitution.

The Court primarily applied Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, which mandates a bar to interference by courts in electoral matters, specifically the delimitation of constituencies.

It relied on Sections 6 (composition of municipality) and 10 (determination of wards) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

Precedents included Guddi v. State of Rajasthan, establishing that final delimitation notifications cannot be scrutinized due to the constitutional bar.

Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, which held that courts cannot supply casus omissus or read words into a statute that are not there.

The court also distinguished Sheela Kumari v. State, noting it addressed Section 6(2) regarding census-linked redetermination rather than Section 10 territorial structuring.

The Court reasoned that Article 243ZG creates a robust constitutional embargo against judicial interference in delimitation matters to ensure electoral processes are not derailed.

On the statutory merits, the Court found a clear distinction between Section 6 (quantitative structural composition) and Section 10 (spatial/territorial configuration).

It held that Section 10 is an independent enabling provision; its exercise is not contingent upon a fresh census or a new Section 6 notification, as the legislature did not include such restrictive language in the text of Section 10.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to challenge the foundational Section 6 notification dated 22.11.2024, which had attained finality; thus, they could not indirectly assail it via a challenge to the Section 10 reorganization.

Finally, the Court ruled that Sheela Kumari did not apply as it did not adjudicate the independent scope of Section 10.

On merits, it held that the State possesses independent authority under Section 10 to structure wards territorially without a fresh census.

The Court found no jurisdictional error or constitutional infirmity in the impugned notification.

Consequently, the writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed.