Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.
State of M.P. and others, Appellants
Versus
Devilal Respondent. 435
Civil Appeal No. 2472 of 1972
Decided on 20-12-1985
'Gerrymander' is an American expression which bas taken root in the English language, meaning to arrange election districts so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of redistribution act or to manipulate constituencies generally. [Para 12]
(2) Panchayats Act, 1962 (M.P.)-Ss. 106 (1) 170, 361, 370-process of election started-notification issued-pattern of election to Janpad Panchayat will be changed- change in constituencies-how to be altered or modified-purpose of section 106.
If the State Government were to issue a notification under sub-section (1) of section 106 of the Act for redistribution of the constituencies in a block after the process of election has started, it would necessarily change the whole pattern of voting in the ejection of members to the Janapada Panchayat. [Para 12]
It is quite clear that the act of gerrymandering was to manipulate the result of the Janapada panchayat and thereby materially affect the constitution of the Zila Panchayat. 1972 JLJ 1 distinguished. [Para 16]
The impugned notification issued by the State Government seeking to alter the constituencies of the blocks after the process of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat had started and that by the Collector dated November 9, 1970 for the reallocation of the reserved seats for the members Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala fide and intended and meant to gain control over the Janapada Panchayat and were therefore liable to be struck down. [Para 15]
The whole purpose of delimitation of a block into constituencies under sub-section (1) of section 106 of the Act is to ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation to the Gram Panchayat and in turn to the Janapada Panchayat and the Zila Panchayat. The result of any election under a majority system depends in fact not only on the way people vote but on the way their votes are distributed among the constituencies. It was therefore impermissible for the State Government to redistribute the constituencies in the Manasa Block under sub-section (1) of section 106 of the Act so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power to gain control over the Janapada Panchayat and in turn over the Zila Panchayat. [Para 16]
Question of delimitation of constituencies in a block under sub section (1) of section 106 of the Act is connected with the holding of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat. Question of delimitation of such constituencies would necessarily arise when there is alteration in the limits of a Gram Sabha area under sub-section (2) of Section 361 of the Act which brings about a change in a block or alteration in the limits of the block under sub-section (4) of section 370. [Para 13]
Where there was no alteration in the limits of the Gram Sabha area under sub- section (2) of section 361 or of the block under sub-section (4) of section 370 and therefore no occasion for the State Government to issue a fresh notification under sub• section (1) of section 106 of the Act purporting to restructure the constituencies of the block. [Para 15]
(3) Pancharats Act, 1962 (M.P.)-Ss. 106 & 370-alterations or modifications of constituencies-process to be followed.
Normally, when the State Government intends to alter or modify the limits or a block, it has to follow the procedure laid down in section 370 of the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof confers a right on the person affected to raise objections in writing to the proposed alteration and casts a duty on the State Government to consider such objections. It is only upon compliance of the mandatory requirements of sub section (3) that the State Government can proceed to issue a notification under sub-sect on (4) of section 370 for the alteration of the limits of a block. That is the normal procedure provided which implies the giving of an opportunity to the persons affected.
Even if there .vas such a power, the State Government was in duty bound to publish the proposal giving an opportunity to the persons affected to raise their objections to the proposed alteration. The impugned notification dated November 25, 1970 issued by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 106 of the Act is therefore totally invalid. [Para 7]
JUDGMENT
SEN, J.:— The issue involved in this appeal on certificate from a judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated January 4, 1972 is as to the powers of the State Government under S. 106 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 to modify or alter the constituencies of the block once delimited by a notification issued thereunder after the process of election of members of the Janapada Panchayat has started; particularly, without affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any objection. On the question involved, conflicting views have been expressed by two Division Benches of the High Court and the High Court certifies that the question raised is one of frequent occurrence and great importance.
2. By the judgment under appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court has held that the provisions of the Act do not confer any power on the State Government to modify or alter the constituencies once fixed by a notification issued under sub-s. (1) of S. 106 of the Act and fixing the number of members to be elected from each constituency. it accordingly struck down the impugned notification issued by the State Government dated Nov. 25, 1970 under Ss. 105 and 106 of the Act purporting to re-structure the constituencies of the Manasa Block
3. Put very briefly, the essential facts are them After the establishment of Gram Sabhas throughout the State under S. 3 of the Act, the State Government in accordance with S. 103 divided the Mandsaur District into eight blocks with Manasa Block as one of them where a Janapada Panchayat was to be established. Under Ss. 105 and 106 of the Act, the State Government by a notification dated Sept. 26, 1969 divided this Block into twenty constituencies from which the representatives of the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa were to be elected, with one representative to be elected from each constituency. After the constituencies were notified, the elections to the Gram Panchayats in the block were completed on Nov. 8, 1970 and they were duly notified by the Collector, Mandsaur on Nov. 14, 1970. On the same day, the new Gram Panchayats assumed office. On Nov. 25,1970, the State Government published a notification purporting to be under S. 106 of the Act for a re-distribution of the constituencies of the block. On Nov. 29, 1970, the Collector also issued a notification reallocating the reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The respondent who had been elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha, Allied and was thus qualified to contest the elections of the President and Vice-President of the Janapada Panchayat, Manasa, filed a petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the impugned notification dated Nov. 25, 1970 issued by the State Government for redelimitation of the constituencies of the block and the notification by the Collector dated Nov. 29, 1970 for the reallocation of the reserved seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, In assailing the validity of the impugned notification dated Nov. 25, 1970, the respondent pleaded, inter alia, that the State Government had no statutory power under S. 106 of the Act to alter or modify the constituencies once the same had been notified and the process of election had started that the issuance of the impugned notification was mala fide and politically motivated with a view to further the prospects of the party in power and that, even otherwise, assuming that there was such a power in the State Government to alter or modify the constituencies of a block during the progress of election to the Janapada Panchayat, the impugned notification for re-distribution of the constituencies for the Manasa Block was illegal and inoperative as it had been published without affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any objection. The respondent, accordingly, sought a writ in the nature of mandamus and other appropriate writs, orders and directions. under Art. 226 of the Constitu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
