Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 601

2009(3) Supreme 350
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Association of Resident of Mhow (ROM) & Anr. — Appellants
versus
The Delimitation Commission of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19497 of 2008)
Decided on : 31-03-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Prashant Bhushan, Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ashok Desai, Sr. Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Suvrajyoti Gupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Once the orders made by the Commission u/ss 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned u/s 10(2), the matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law.

Headnote:(a) Delimitation Act, 2002 – Section 29(2) – The proposals for delimitation are with regard to the whole of the State and not constituency-centric – These proposals cannot emanate from any interested person – Commission is not under any obligation to go on issuing revised proposals depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be received by it in response to its proposals. (Para 18)
        1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 305 – Distinguished.
        (b) Delimitation Act, 2002 – Section 10(2) r/w Articles 327 and 329 – Protection under Section 10 (2) of the Act as well as Article 329(a) is available only when the mandatory requirements of Section 9(2) are complied with by the Commission. (Paras 19 and 24)
        (c) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 243-O (a) – The provision enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters. (Para 21)
        (d) Delimitation Act, 2002 – Section 10(2) – Once the orders made by the Commission u/ss 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned u/s 10(2), they are in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself – These matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. (Paras 23 and 25)
        (1967)1 SCR 400 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
        1. The Delimitation Commission published its proposals for the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Under the said proposals Dhar Parliamentary Constituency is shown consisting of 8 Assembly Constituencies including 203-Depalpur and the adjoining 26-Indore Parliamentary Constituency also had 8 Assembly Constituencies including 209-Mhow.
        2. The Commission finally determined the delimitation of both Dhar and Indore Parliamentary Constituencies. In its final determination the Commission included Mhow Assembly Constituency into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency by deleting the same from Indore Parliamentary Constituency as originally proposed. Consequently the Depalpur Assembly Constituency has been deleted from Dhar Parliamentary Constituency and added to Indore Parliamentary Constituency. The present controversy centers around final determination of the delimitation of Indore Parliamentary Constituency.
        3. The main issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the Commission had complied with the mandatory requirement as provided for in Section 9 (2) of the Act, insofar as it concerns the shifting of Mhow Assembly Constituency from Indore Parliamentary Constituency and including the same into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency.
       Finding of the Court :
        The proposals for delimitation are with regard to the whole of the State and not constituency-centric.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissing the W.P. (c) No. 13509 of 2007 filed by the appellants herein.

INTRODUCTION:

3. The periodic readjustment of the Lok Sabha and Assembly Constituencies is mandatory in representative systems where single member constituencies are used for electing political representatives. The electoral districts are dawn on the basis of the last published census figure that they are relatively equal in population. Electoral districts that vary significantly in population - a condition called malapportionment - violate a central tenet of democracy that all the votes cast must be of equal weight. The last delimitation was in 1973 pursuant to the Delimitation Act, 1972. Since then there has been increase of 87% in the population and most of the constituencies across the country have become malapportioned.

4. The Delimitation Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) is an Act to provide for the readjustment of the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State, the division of each State and each Union territory having a legislative Assembly into territorial constituencies for election to the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies of the States and Union territories and for matters connected therewith. The Central Government constituted the Delimitation Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Act consisting of a retired judge of the Supreme Court as its Chairperson and other members. The Commission so set up started functioning w.e.f. 4.7.2002.

5. In order to appreciate the nature of functions and duties entrusted to the Commission it may be just and necessary to notice the relevant provisions.

6. Section 8 deals with readjustment of number of seats. It says:

“8. Readjustment of number of seats.— The Commission shall, having regard to the provisions of articles 81, 170, 330 and 332, and also, in relation to the Union territories, except National Capital Territory of Delhi, sections 3 and 39 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963) and in relation to the National Capital Territory of Delhi sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 239AA, by order, determine,—

(a) on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1971 and subject to the provisions of section 4, the number of seats in the House of the People to be allocated to each State and determine on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1[2001] the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State; and

(b) on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1971 and subject to the provisions of section 4, the total number of seats to be assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State and determine on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the year 1[2001] the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State:

Provided that the total number of seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (b) shall be an integral multiple of the number of seats in the House of the People allocated to that State under clause (a).

7. Section 9 deals with delimitation of constituencies which is as under:

“9. Delimitation of constituencies.— (1) The Commission shall, in the manner herein provided, then, distribute the seats in the House of the People allocated to each State and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State as readjusted on the basis of 1971 census to single-member territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the census figures as ascertained, at the census held in the year 1991, having rega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 601

IMPORTANT POINT Once the orders made by the Commission u/ss 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned u/s 10(2), the matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Once the orders made by the Commission u/ss 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned u/s 10(2), the matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law.