2023 Supreme(SC) 118

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Haji Abdul Gani Khan and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 237 of 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Constitution of Delimitation Commission for Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – There is nothing illegal about exercise of delimitation/readjustment of constituencies undertaken by Delimitation Commission for the purposes of dividing Union Territory into 90 constituencies on the basis of 2011 census figures.
(2) Constitutional Validity of a Statute – A statute cannot be interpreted in a manner that will render some of its provisions otiose – When a party wants to challenge constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail grounds on which validity of statute is sought to be challenged.

Headnote:

(A) Delimitation Act, 2002 – Sections 3 and 11 – Constitution of India – Article 370 and 239A – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – Section 13 – Constitution of Delimitation Commission for Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Delimitation Commission established under Order dated 6th March 2020 had to undertake exercise of delimitation or readjustment on the basis of census figures of 2011 as earlier exercise of delimitation of constituencies of erstwhile State was not made on the basis of census figures of 2011 – There is nothing illegal about exercise of delimitation/readjustment of constituencies undertaken by Delimitation Commission for the purposes of dividing Union Territory into 90 constituencies on the basis of 2011 census figures – Delimitation of five parliamentary constituencies of Union Territory of J & K and one constituency of Union Territory of Ladakh was made by virtue of Section 11 as provided in Second Schedule – There is no illegality associated with delimitation/readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of Union Territory of J & K undertaken by Delimitation Commission – Once Delimitation Commission was established, there is nothing wrong if Central Government extended period of appointment of Chairperson till task of delimitation/readjustment was completed – Delimitation Act, 2002 is silent about term of appointment of Chairperson.. (Paras 29, 30, 31 and 36)

(B) Delimitation Act, 2002 – Section 10A – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Constitution of Delimitation Commission – Exclusion of North-Eastern States from purview of Notification dated 6th March 2020 – Term of Delimitation Commission constituted under Notification dated 6th March 2020 was extended by a period of one year only in relation to Union territory of J & K. – By third impugned notification, period was further extended by a period of two months – Section 10A of Delimitation Act, 2002 itself permits postponement of exercise of delimitation in certain contingencies – Position and status of newly created Union Territory of J&K under Constitution is completely different from four North-Eastern States – Two unequal cannot be treated as equals – Argument based on violation of Constitutional provisions including Article 14 deserves to be rejected. (Paras )

(C) Statute Law – Constitutional Validity of a Statute – A statute cannot be interpreted in a manner that will render some of its provisions otiose – A statute must be construed and interpreted in such a manner as to make it workable – When a party wants to challenge constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail grounds on which validity of statute is sought to be challenged – In absence of specific pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go into issue of validity of statutory provisions – Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with law made by Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in pleadings – There is always a presumption of constitutionality of laws – Burden is always on person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it – For that purpose, challenge has to be specifically pleaded by setting out specific grounds on which challenge is made – Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from pleadings that challenge to validity is implicit – State gets a proper opportunity to defend legislation only if State is made aware of grounds on which legislation is sought to be challenged. (Paras 14 and 34)

Facts of the case:

Main challenge in this writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India is to the legality and validity of the action of constituting a Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir under provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002 and the exercise of delimitation undertaken by the Commission.

Findings of Court:

There is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions raised by petitioners. However, findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of Constitution is valid. Issue of the validity of the exercise of said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending before this Court. Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of Constitution.

Result : Writ Petition dismissed.