SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Versus
MOHD. ABDUL GHANI AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 4537 of 1984{From the Judgment and Order dated 14-11-1984 of the Calcutta High Court in C.R. Case No. Nil (W) of 1984},
decided on November 1, 1995
Advocates appeared
Girish Chandra, Advocate, for the Appellant;
A.K. Ganguli, Senior Advocate (Ms Aruna Mathur and A. Mariarputham, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 82 , 81(2)(b) and 81(3) - Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976 - Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Section 9(1 )(b) - Delimitation Act, 1972 - Section 11(1)0) and 11(b) - Elections - Allotment of seats - Sixteen villages in territorial division of District on west bank of River Ganges in State formed part of Parliamentary Constituency, and elections were held on this basis - This is how these villages were described - However, River Ganges having started changing its course , ultimately brought about change because of which these 16 villages came to be located towards east bank of river - Respondents who are residents of these villages filed a writ petition in Calcutta High Court claiming that as a result of above geographical change, these 16 villages should now form part of Malda Parliamentary Constituency since they have become a part of District instead of earlier District - It was claimed that this is duty cast on Election Commission to make such a change by virtue – Held, These additional words leave no doubt that power to maintain Delimitation Orders up-to-date conferred on Election Commission is subject to restriction that in updating Delimitation Orders occasioned by an alteration of boundaries or name of any district or any territorial division it does not make any change in boundaries or areas or extent of any constituency as shown in Delimitation Order - In Court opinion, entire scheme of these enactments and nature of power conferred on Election Commission to merely update Delimitation Order by making necessary changes on account of subsequent events to correct description in Delimitation Order which has become inappropriate - This power cannot extend to alteration of boundaries or area or extent of any constituency as shown in Delimitation Order - Prayer made in writ petition filed in High Court which has been granted by High Court is contrary to express prohibition contained in Section 11(i)(b) of Delimitation Act, 1972 - This being so a mandamus could not be issued to Election Commission to perform an exercise expressly forbidden by law - This appeal has therefore been allowed - Consequently, appeal is allowed - Judgment of High Court is set aside.
Judgment
J.S. VERMA, J.- Sixteen villages in the territorial division of District Murshidabad on the west bank of River Ganges in the State of West Bengal formed part of 8-Jangipur Parliamentary Constituency, and the elections in 1977, 1980 and 1982 were held on this basis. This is how these villages were described in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976 (for short "the Delimitation Order, 1976"). However, River Ganges having started changing its course in 1957, ultimately brought about the change because of which these 16 villages came to be located towards the east bank of the river. After this change these villages came to form part of the territorial division named as District Malda. The State Government made the consequential changes in the description of these villages when they became part of District Malda for all administrative purposes. In spite of this geographical change resulting in inclusion of these 16 villages in the territorial division of District Malda for administrative purposes, the position of these villages remained unaltered for election purposes and they continued to form part of 8-Jangipur Parliamentary Constituency in accordance with the Delimitation Order of 1976 made on the basis of the previous census held in 1971. The next census is now due after the year 2000.
2. The respondents who are residents of these villages filed a writ petition in 1984 in Calcutta High Court claiming that as a result of the above geographical change, these 16 villages should now form part of the Malda Parliamentary Constituency since they have become a part of District Malda instead of the earlier District Murshidabad. It was claimed that this is the duty cast on the Election Commission to make such a change by virtue of Section 9(1 )(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short "the R.P. Act, 1950"). A writ of mandamus was claimed in the writ petition to direct the Election Commission to make this change. That writ petition has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who has also granted a certificate under Article 132 of the Constitution for appeal to this Court. Hence this appeal.
3. The only question for decision is: Whether the above geographical change resulting in these 16 villages becoming part of District Malda when earlier they formed part of District Murshidabad, requires these villages to be included now in Malda Parliamentary Constituency instead of Jangipur Parliamentary Constituency as shown in the Delimitation Order, 1976? This question has to be answered with reference to Section 9(l)(b) of the R.P. Act, 1950 and Section 11(b) of the Delimitation Act, 1972 read with the third proviso to Article 82 of the Constitution of India.
4. The relevant provisions are as under:
Constitution of India
"81. Composition of the House of the People.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 331, the House of the People shall consist of -
(a) not more than five hundred and thirty members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the States, and
(b) not more than twenty members to represent the Union territories, chosen in such manner as Parliament may by law provide.
(2) For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (1), -
(a) there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, the same for all States; and
(b) each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State:
Provided that the provisions of sub-clause (a) of this clause shall not be applicable for the purpose of allotment of seats in the House of the People to any State so long as the population of that State does not exceed six millions.
(3) In this article, the expression populatio
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.