SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1036

Supreme Court Of India
ANAND SINGH KUNWAR - Appellant
Versus
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 08/07/2007

The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes must be made in proportion to their population in the State, as mandated by Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Election Commission - Reservation of Seats - Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India, Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 - 282/UTT/ 2001-DEL, 5-11-2001, Clause 5(e) of Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 - The court addressed the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttaranchal, focusing on the violation of Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The Election Commission's decision to increase the reserved seats from 2 to 3 for Scheduled Tribes was found to be in violation of the constitutional mandate, and the court emphasized the paramount consideration of the reservation being made in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the State.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the increase in reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttaranchal by the Election Commission. The main contention was that the increase from 2 to 3 seats for Scheduled Tribes was in violation of the constitutional provisions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Election Commission's decision to increase the reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes from 2 to 3 was in violation of Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India, which mandates reservation in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the State.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the Election Commission's decision to increase the reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttaranchal, and whether it was in compliance with the constitutional provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes must be made in proportion to their population in the State, as mandated by Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India. The Election Commission's decision to increase the reserved seats from 2 to 3 for Scheduled Tribes was found to be in violation of this constitutional mandate.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the case, acknowledging that the 2007 elections had already taken place, but emphasized that in the future, the vacancy for Scheduled Tribes should be treated as two seats only.

ORDER

1. This is a petition transferred from the High Court on the request of the union of India and it has been registered as Transferred Case No. 20 of 2004. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner before the High Court with the following prayers:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing/setting aside the order and Notification No. 282/UTT/ 2001-DEL dated 5-11-2001 issued by Respondent 1 insofar as it pertains to increasing the reserved seats from 2 to 3 for Scheduled Tribes in the State of uttaranchal and consequently declare that only 2 seats be reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttaranchal.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to modify the impugned order dated 5-11-2000 notified and published in the Official Gazette of the Uttaranchal Government and consequently direct the respondents to declare Dharchula Constituency in District Pithoragarh (AC No. 70) as a general seat.

3. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Clause 5(e) of Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 insofar as it relates to “... and shall not be called in question in any court” as the same is violative of the basic feature of the Constitution of India.

4. Costs and such further relief(s) be granted as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioners are the citizens of India and residents of Dharchula constituency. They filed the writ petition before the Uttaranchal High Court in public interest, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Notification No. 282/ UTT/2001-DEL dated 5-11-2001 issued by Respondent 1 i.e. Election Commission of India insofar as it pertains to increasing the reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttaranchal. The Election Commission passed an order in continuance to this notification under sub-section (5) of Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 in respect of the delimitation of assembly constituencies in the State of Uttaranchal and by that order the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttaranchal was fixed at seventy by the Election Commission and the Election Commission has determined the number of seats to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of Uttaranchal as twelve (12) and three (3) respectively. That means, three (3) seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes which is the subject-matter of dispute in the present case.

3. The main contention of the petitioner in this petition is that as per the census data the population of the Scheduled Tribes is 3% of the total population of Uttaranchal and as per the delimitation of the State of Uttaranchal, seventy (70) single-member territorial assembly constituencies were created in the State of Uttaranchal. In reference to Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India the number of seats as far as possible is to the extent of 3% of the seventy (70) seats of the State of Uttaranchal. That comes to 2.1 which is nearer to two (2) seats than to three (3) seats, but the Election Commission has fixed three (3) seats for Scheduled Tribes which is beyond the provisions of the Constitution.

4. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Election Commission and they have tried to justify it alleging that this was a bona fide mistake and they have rectified the same now and they have reduced the seats of Scheduled Tribes from three (3) to two (2). Para 3 of their counter-affidavit reads as under:

“3. (iii) In the delimitation order dated 28-12-2006 of the Delimitation Commission under the Delimitation Act, 2002 published in the Official Gazette, only 2 seats, namely, Chakrata in District Dehradun and Nanak Matta in District Udhamsingh Nagar have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttarakhand and Dharc




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top