Judgment

MITTER, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order dated February 20, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 72 of 1965. The High Court summarily dismissed the petition under Art. 228 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing a notification issued in pursuance of sub-s. (1) of S. 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act 1962 in respect of the delimitation of certain Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petition was rejected on the short ground that under Art. 329 (a) of the Constitution the said notification could not be questioned in any Court. Article 329 - which is relevant for our purpose - reads :

"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 Art. 328, shall not be called in question in any Court;"

2. Before us it was contended that the notification referred to is not law and secondly it was not made under Art. 327 of the Constitution.

3. The facts are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a resident of Ujjain and a citizen of India. He had been a voter in all the previous general elections and still claims to he a voter in Daulatganj, Ward No. 5 in the Electoral Roll of Ujjain. He claims to have a right to contest the election to any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The impugned notification which was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on July 24, 1964 shows Ujjain as a constituency reserved for the scheduled castes. : It was made in pursuance of sub-s. (1) to S. 10 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 and recites that proposals of the Delimitation Commission for the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh had been published on October 15, 1963 in the Gazette of India and in the official gazette of the State of Madhya Pradesh and that after considering all objections and suggestions the Commission determined that the territorial constituencies into which the State of Madhya Pradesh shall be divided for the purpose of elections to the House of the People and the extent of each such constituency shall be as shown in Table A.

4. Respondent No. 1 to the petition was the Delimitation Commission, respondent No. 2 was its Chairman and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were its members. The petition alleges many acts of omission and commission on the part of the Commission and its Chairman, but we are not here concerned with all that. If we come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition on the short ground noted above, we shall have to send the case back to the High Court for trial on merits. According to the petitioner, Ujjain city has been from the inception of the Constitution of India a general constituency and by the feet of the city being converted into a reserved constituency his right to be a candidate for Parliament from this constituency has been taken away.

5. In order to appreciate the working of the Delimitation Commission and the purpose which it serves reference must be made to the following Articles of the Constitution. Article 82 provides that-

"Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine :

Provided that such readjustment shall not affect representation in the House of the People until the dissolution of the then existing House."

6. This Article is a verbatim copy of C1. (3) of Art. 81 of the Constitution before its amendment in 1956.

7. Article 327 of the Constitution provides that

"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by law make pr