HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & RAJIV SHAKDHER, JJ.
Vikas & Others
Versus
State Election Commission & Others
W.P.(C) Nos.771 2012, 782/2012, 698/2012, 724/2012, 745/2012, 746/2012, 750/2012, 807/2012, 814/2012, 841/2012, 924/2012, 927 of 2012
Decided on : 29-02-2012
The High Court of Delhi, while adjudicating upon a batch of writ petitions challenging the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) candidates in the impending elections to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), upheld the notifications issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and the State Election Commission (SEC). The Court found that the notifications were in accordance with the law and that the SEC had carried out a considered exercise in determining the reservation formula. The Court also rejected the challenge to the delegation of power by the GNCTD to the SEC, holding that such delegation was permissible under the relevant statutory provisions and did not erode the independence of the SEC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, prospective candidates in the upcoming MCD elections, challenged the notifications issued by the GNCTD and the SEC reserving seats for SCs and women. They contended that the reservation formula adopted was arbitrary and resulted in wrong and incorrect reservation of seats. Additionally, they challenged the delegation of power by the GNCTD to the SEC, arguing that it was not permissible under the law and impinged on the independence of the SEC.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the SEC had carried out a considered exercise in determining the reservation formula, taking into account relevant factors such as the population of SCs in different Assembly Constituencies and wards, and the need to prevent the concentration of reserved seats. The Court held that the methodology adopted by the SEC was reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court also rejected the challenge to the delegation of power by the GNCTD to the SEC, holding that such delegation was permissible under the relevant statutory provisions and did not erode the independence of the SEC.
Issues: 1. Whether the reservation formula adopted by the SEC for SCs and women was arbitrary and resulted in incorrect reservation of seats? 2. Whether the delegation of power by the GNCTD to the SEC was permissible under the law and impinged on the independence of the SEC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the SEC had carried out a considered exercise in determining the reservation formula, taking into account relevant factors such as the population of SCs in different Assembly Constituencies and wards, and the need to prevent the concentration of reserved seats. The Court found that the methodology adopted by the SEC was reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. 2. The Court held that the delegation of power by the GNCTD to the SEC was permissible under the relevant statutory provisions and did not erode the independence of the SEC.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the notifications issued by the GNCTD and the SEC. The Court found that the notifications were in accordance with the law and that the SEC had carried out a considered exercise in determining the reservation formula. The Court also rejected the challenge to the delegation of power by the GNCTD to the SEC, holding that such delegation was permissible under the relevant statutory provisions and did not erode the independence of the SEC.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
1. The notifications issued reserving seats for Scheduled Castes (for short ‘SC’) candidates in the impending elections to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short ‘MCD’) has given rise to the present batch of writ petitions by prospective candidates. The changes effected in pursuance of the notification in the wards of the Corporations of which elections are to be held has resulted in the grievance. One set of petitions only seek to impugn the notification dated 27.1.2012 reserving the wards for the SC and for women (both SC and General category) while the other set of petitions also seek to lay a further challenge to the delegation of powers by the Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi (for short ‘GNCTD’) to the State Election Commission (for short ‘SEC’) vide notification dated 24.1.2012 to carry out the exercise of identifying the reserved wards. We may notice that though earlier there was one Delhi Municipal Corporation, now there will be three Municipal Corporations in the NCT of Delhi in pursuance of a notification dated 27.1.2012 – North Delhi, South Delhi and East Delhi.
2. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) was enacted by the Parliament for constituting the MCD. The Councilors of the Corporation are chosen by direct election on the basis of adult suffrage from various wards into which Delhi is divided. The MCD was established under Section 3 of the said Act and consisted of 80 Councilors initially out of which 12 seats were reserved for members of SC. The Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 inserted Chapter IX-A in the Constitution of India pertaining to Municipalities. This was followed by the amendment to the said Act by virtue of Act No.67 of 1993 assigning 134 wards to the MCD out of which 25 per cent seats were reserved for the members of the SC on the basis of the population census of 1991.
3. The SEC issued a notification on 30.12.1993 in exercise of powers under proviso 4 to sub-sections (6), (7) & (8) of Section 3 of the said Act determining the total number of seats for women and also for women belonging to the SC from amongst the seats reserved for SCs and also determined the manner of rotation of the total reserved seats in the Corporation. However, this notification is stated to have been withdrawn and another notification dated 18.3.1994 was issued by the SEC determining that out of 25 seats reserved for SC, 9 seats would be reserved for women belonging to SCs. The total number of seats reserved for women other than SCs was fixed at 37 by a subsequent notification dated 21.3.1994. The last of these set of notifications were issued on 23.3.1994 notifying the reservation by allotment of seats for women members of SC and women belong to SC and the manner of reservation and rotation of reserved seats in different wards for six terms. The 134 wards were sought to be divided into five groups, four groups comprising 32 wards each and a fifth group of 6 wards. The reservation and rotation formulae were set out in the notification on the basis of these groups.
4. The aforesaid notification dated 23.3.1994 became subject matter of challenge in WP (C) No.1571/1994 titled Hem Raj Arya & Ors. Vs. The Election Commission of the NCT of Delhi & Ors. The said writ petition inter alia raised the issue of the manner of reservation of wards. The writ petition was dismissed on 1.1.1995. The general elections to the Councilors of the MCD in 1997 are stated to have been held on the basis of notifications of 23.3.1994.
5. Prior to the next elections to the wards of MCD being held, a notification dated 27.11.2001 was issued by the Central Government in supersession of the earlier notification dated 23.3.1994 directing and notifying that the reservation by allotment of seats for women, members of the SC and women belonging to the SC and the manner of reservation and rotation of reserved seats in different wards for th
Ramesh Dutta V The State Election Commission Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Jyoti Pershad V Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1961 SC 1602
Prashant Bansilal Bamb & ors. V The State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 Bom 53
Kanhiya Lal Omar V R.K. Trivedi & ors. AIR 1986 SC 111
Tata Iron and Steel Ltd. v Workmen AIR 1972 SC 1917
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.