SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Anr – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No 443 of 2017, Writ Petition (Civil) No 187 of 2019
Decided on : 23-11-2023
JUDGMENT :
| Contents |
| Constitutional Framework |
| Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 |
| Delimitation Act, 2002 |
| Factual Context |
| Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners |
| Submissions on behalf of the Respondents |
| Delimitation Notification of 2006 and the Delimitation Order of 2008 |
| Issues |
| Analysis: |
| Whether Delimitation Commission can amend the 2006 Notification under the Delimitation Act |
| Whether the Election Commission can Amend the 2008 Order to incorporate those changes |
| The Scope of powers of the Election Commission under Article 324, Constitution of India |
| Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 |
| Scope of Powers of the Election Commission under RP Act. |
| Section 9, RP Act and Section 11, Delimitation Act |
| Proportional Representation |
| Conclusion |
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked in two petitions. The first of those petitions seeks a direction for the grant of proportional representation for the Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal and Sikkim in terms of the mandate of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution.
2. The second petition seeks more specifically, a direction for upholding the constitutional rights of the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled Tribe to reservation of seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly. It seeks directions to amend/strike down the Notification of the Delimitation Commission dated 4 September 2006 and the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order 20081[“2006 Notification” and “2008 Order”] to the extent that they do not provide for reservations for members of the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled Tribe. It additionally seeks directions to the effect that Section 7(1A) of the Representation of People’s Act2[“RP Act”] is ultra vires the Constitution for the same reason. The petitioner seeks directions to the Delimitation Commission as well as the Election Commission to effectuate the mandate of Article 332 of the Constitution, in respect of Limboo Tamang Scheduled Tribe, by undertaking necessary changes to the 2006 Notification and the 2008 Order.
Constitutional Framework
3. Article 342 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify the tribal communities of the country which will be designated as Scheduled Tribes. Communities so designated by the President in the Scheduled Tribes Order or later added by amendment are treated as Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of the Constitution, according to Article 366 (25).
4. Article 330 of the Constitution provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People. Clause (2) of Article 330 states that the number of seats reserved in a State or Union Territory for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes under clause (1) “shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to that State or Union Territory in the House of People as the population of Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes in that State or Union Territory bears to the total population of the State or Union Territory”.
5. Similar provisions are contained in clause (3) of Article 3323[332. Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States.—(1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, 8[except the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam], in the Legislative Assembly of every State.
…
(3) The number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats in the Assembly as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or part of
Virendra Pratap and Another vs Union of India and Others
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner
The Delimitation Commission's orders cannot be amended post-publication, and the Election Commission lacks authority to incorporate changes without enabling legislation.
(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 Delimitatio....
Delimitation orders issued under constitutional provisions are immune from judicial review barring exceptional circumstances; challenges to their validity cannot be entertained under Article 226 of t....
Exclusion of states from delimitation under impugned notifications is valid; Article 170 provides constitutional freeze until post-2026 census data is published, preventing enforceable right to delim....
Delimitation exercises must adhere strictly to statutory provisions to ensure free and fair elections; failing to do so constitutes a colorable exercise of power.
Special constitutional provisions granted for state legislative assembly representation do not automatically extend to municipal elections. Courts will not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to inte....
Election - Delimitation notification - Both Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat, only rider is in terms of proviso appended to Sections 161 and 122 which bar Election Commission to bring into force d....
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.