Published delimitation orders are judicially reviewable only on limited constitutional grounds and at an appropriate stage.

The petitioner, an elector residing in Ambedkar Nagar District, challenged the 2006 delimitation of its Assembly constituencies and the reservation of Alapur as a Scheduled Caste constituency.

He relied on population calculations to argue that the constituencies were unequally sized and that Alapur’s reservation was arbitrary; he also contended that different territorial units should have been assigned to the constituencies.

The delimitation followed publication of draft proposals in July 2006 and a final order in December 2006.

The respondents opposed the petition on grounds including finality and delay, noting that the order had governed successive elections.

Whether the Court could review the Delimitation Commission’s final order and consequential reservation, and whether the petitioner established a permissible ground for intervention.

Whether the population disparity, transfer of territorial units and reservation of Alapur disclosed a constitutional or legal violation warranting relief, notwithstanding the delay in challenging the 2006 order.

Section 10(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 gives finality to published delimitation orders, which have the force of law and are not ordinarily open to challenge in court.

Relying on Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India, the Court recognised that judicial review is not completely barred, but is available only within a limited sphere and at an appropriate stage.

Applying Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India, the Court treated want of legislative competence and violation of a fundamental right or other constitutional provision as the relevant grounds for review.

Article 170(2) requires population-to-seat equality “so far as practicable,” allowing latitude for relevant considerations; non-statutory delimitation guidelines do not create an independently enforceable right to a particular population range.

The Court also relied on Jagdish Singh and Chandra Mani Prasad v. Union of India for the proposition that courts cannot direct rotation or reallocation of reserved seats on comparative population grounds, a matter for Parliament.

The petitioner’s case rested on his own demographic calculations and proposed alternative territorial arrangements. The Court held that these concerned the Commission’s technical methodology and did not establish lack of legislative competence or violation of a constitutional guarantee; Article 170(2)’s “so far as practicable” language also permitted relevant deviations, and the cited ±10% guidelines were not mandatory law.

The comparative Scheduled Caste percentages did not establish a right to have Alapur treated as a general constituency, since reallocation or rotation of reserved seats was not a matter the Court could direct.

The Court further found no demonstrated mala fides or constitutional defect in the transfer of territorial units.

Independently, the challenge came nearly two decades after the order, after successive elections had been held under it; the Court held that such delay, particularly before the anticipated fresh delimitation following the 2026 Census, made intervention inappropriate.

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and made no order as to costs.