Back
1994 Supreme(AP) 395
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.S.RAIKOTE
Juttukonda Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 09-05-94
The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution of India cannot be called in question in any court.
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - DELIMITATION OF CONSTITUENCIES - RESERVATION OF CONSTITUENCY FOR SCHEDULED CASTES - CHALLENGE TO RESERVATION - VALIDITY OF DELIMITATION ORDER - RIGHT TO CONTEST ELECTIONS - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a resident of Suryapet, Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh, challenged the reservation of the 284 - Suryapet Assembly Constituency for Scheduled Castes since 1952, arguing that it violated his fundamental right to contest elections and that the delimitation of constituencies was arbitrary and contrary to the Delimitation Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reservation of the constituency for Scheduled Castes for nearly 40 years did not violate the petitioner's fundamental right to contest elections, as the right to contest elections is a constitutional or statutory right, not a fundamental right, and is subject to other provisions of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the reservation of the 284 - Suryapet Assembly Constituency for Scheduled Castes for nearly 40 years violated the petitioner's fundamental right to contest elections. 2. Whether the delimitation of constituencies was arbitrary and contrary to the Delimitation Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the right to contest elections is not a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, but a constitutional or statutory right subject to other provisions of the Constitution. 2. The court held that the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976, which reserved the constituency in question for Scheduled Castes, is a law for the purpose of Article 329 of the Constitution of India and cannot be called in question in any court. 3. The court held that the petitioner's contention that the constituencies should have been worked out on the basis of the latest census of the year 1991 was untenable, as the latest census figures under the Delimitation Act, 1972 and Article 170 of the Constitution of India meant only the census figure based on the 1971 census.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission, holding that the petitioner's contentions were untenable and that the delimitation order was valid.
( 2 ) IN support of the relief that he has claimed, the petitioner contends that he is a resident of Jammigadda village, Suryapet, Nalgonda district in Andhra pradesh and his name is entered in the voters list for the ensuing elections for the Legislative Assembly in Andhra Pradesh. His further contention is that since he is not a person belonging to Scheduled Castes in the Constituency no. 284 - Suryapet Assembly Constituency, in which he is a voter, he is not able to contest for the elections, as the same is reserved for the Scheduled Castes.
( 3 ) THE said Constituency has been reserved for the Scheduled Castes from the year 1952 i. e. , for nearly forty years, the voters in the said Constituency, who were not Scheduled Castes, were not able to contest the elections. Therefore, reserving the said Constituency almost permanently would defeat his fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution.
( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly urged two main points viz. , (1) that reserving the Constituency in question for Scheduled Castesalmost for 40 years and odd has taken away the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner in the Constitution to contest for elections or to be elected as a member of Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh State and thus, it is unconstitutional; and (2) that according to Section 4 of the Delimitation Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Delimitation Act, the latest census figures should have been taken into account for the allocation of seats and according to the latest census published in the year 1991, the percentage of Scheduled Castes population in Suryapet Assembly Constituency is less than the percentage of the said population in other constituencies, which are unreserved. Therefore, the delimitation of the constituencies, particularly pertaining to 284 Suryapet assembly Constituency in Nalgonda district is unconstitutional, arbitrary and contrary to the Delimitation Act.
( 5 ) IN support of these two points, the learned Counsel for the petitioner took me through the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Delimitation Act; the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976 and other relevant provisions of the Constitution.
( 6 ) LET me first consider the first point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that reserving the constituency in question for Scheduled Castes almost for 40 years and odd has taken away the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner in the Constitution of India to contest for elections or to be elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh and thus, it is unconstitutional. In support of his first contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought certain material papers to show that the constituency in question was reserved for the Scheduled Castes right from the year 1952 and the said reservation stands even as on to-day for the ensuing elections. The relevant provision he brought to my notice is, Section 8 of the representation of the People Act, 1950. It would be necessary to quote that section as under:- "consolidation OF DELIMITATION ORDERS:- (1) As soon as may be, after all the orders referred to in sub-section (5) of section 4 or in sub-section (3) of Section 7 relating to the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies have been made by the delimitation Commission or, as the c
