1. Challenge to statewide delimitation exercise for Panchayati Raj and Municipal institutions and consequential postponement of elections. (Para 7 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2466
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ., SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Sheela Kumari, W/o. Shri Ram Narayan Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7718 of 2025 Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2338 of 2020
Decided On : 14-11-2025
Important Points
Delimitation notifications are conditional legislation restricted to limited judicial review. Non-statutory administrative guidelines are unenforceable by mandamus, and the principles of natural justice do not apply to such legislative functions. Ward redetermination must be based on the latest census data.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Local Self-Governance
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 243-E, 243-K, 243-O, 243-U, 243-Q, 243-ZA, 243-ZG; State Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 30, 36, 95, 101, 102; State Municipalities Act, 2009 - Sections 3, 6, 9, 10, 322 - Delimitation of local bodies - Postponement of elections - Appointment of administrators.
(B) Judicial review of delimitation - Final notifications for the delimitation of constituencies are in the nature of conditional legislation. The scope of interference under Article 226 is limited to judicial review, exercisable only in rarest cases where manifest arbitrariness or inconsistency with constitutional values is established (Paras 102, 123).
(C) Statutory force of guidelines - Administrative guidelines issued for delimitation that are not framed as rules under the relevant Act and not notified in the official gazette lack statutory force. Such guidelines are internal procedural instructions and are not enforceable via a writ of mandamus (Paras 110, 205).
(D) Principles of natural justice - The maxim *audi alteram partem* does not apply to the process of delimitation as it is legislative in character; therefore, there is no statutory requirement to adjudicate every objection with a reasoned order (Paras 118-119). (E) Cessation of office - A member or chairperson of a local body must vacate office if the area they represent is excluded from the jurisdiction of that local body by operation of law; such cessation is automatic and the tenure does not continue for the full term (Paras 183-186). (F) Appointment of administrators - The state possesses statutory discretion to appoint an administrator during the dissolution of a local body. Appointing former office-bearers as administrators in rural bodies is permissible to ensure administrative continuity and prevent bureaucratic usurpation (Paras 197-200). (G) Postponement of elections - While the mandate to hold elections every five years is mandatory, postponement is permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as a bona fide, large-scale administrative reorganization of local bodies to ensure financial and functional viability (Paras 219-223). (H) Ward delimitation without census - Redetermination of municipal ward boundaries without a fresh census enumeration or any alteration in the total population or territorial limits of the municipality is contrary to the statutory mandate and impermissible (Paras 174-177).
Facts of the case:
Numerous petitions challenged a statewide exercise of delimitation and reorganization of rural and urban local bodies. The process led to the inclusion or exclusion of various areas from local bodies, the resulting removal of elected representatives from office, the appointment of administrators, and the postponement of elections. Petitioners alleged that the state disregarded administrative guidelines and violated the principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that delimitation notifications are conditional legislation and thus generally immune from merit-based judicial review. The guidelines cited by petitioners were held to be non-statutory and unenforceable. The removal of representatives was deemed a legal consequence of boundary changes. The appointment of administrators and the postponement of elections for systemic reorganization were held to be valid exercises of executive and statutory power. However, the Court found that altering municipal ward boundaries without a fresh census was illegal.
Issues: Whether final delimitation notifications are subject to judicial review; whether administrative guidelines regarding delimitation are legally binding; whether the principles of natural justice apply to the delimitation process; the legal effect of boundary changes on the tenure of elected members; the validity of appointing former members as administrators; and whether elections can be postponed for reorganization purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: Delimitation is a legislative function, rendering it immune from interference except in cases of manifest arbitrariness. Mandamus cannot enforce non-statutory administrative instructions. Statutory membership ceases automatically upon the removal of the represented area from the local body's jurisdiction. Deferment of elections is justified when a bona fide large-scale reorganization is required for administrative efficiency.
Result: The writ petitions challenging the final notifications and administrator appointments are dismissed; the removal of representatives is upheld; the change of internal municipal ward boundaries without a census is disallowed; and the state is directed to conduct simultaneous elections for all local bodies on or before 15.04.2026.
(B) Judicial review of delimitation - Final notifications for the delimitation of constituencies are in the nature of conditional legislation. The scope of interference under Article 226 is limited to judicial review, exercisable only in rarest cases where manifest arbitrariness or inconsistency with constitutional values is established (Paras 102, 123).
(C) Statutory force of guidelines - Administrative guidelines issued for delimitation that are not framed as rules under the relevant Act and not notified in the official gazette lack statutory force. Such guidelines are internal procedural instructions and are not enforceable via a writ of mandamus (Paras 110, 205).
(D) Principles of natural justice - The maxim *audi alteram partem* does not apply to the process of delimitation as it is legislative in character; therefore, there is no statutory requirement to adjudicate every objection with a reasoned order (Paras 118-119). (E) Cessation of office - A member or chairperson of a local body must vacate office if the area they represent is excluded from the jurisdiction of that local body by operation of law; such cessation is automatic and the tenure does not continue for the full term (Paras 183-186). (F) Appointment of administrators - The state possesses statutory discretion to appoint an administrator during the dissolution of a local body. Appointing former office-bearers as administrators in rural bodies is permissible to ensure administrative continuity and prevent bureaucratic usurpation (Paras 197-200). (G) Postponement of elections - While the mandate to hold elections every five years is mandatory, postponement is permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as a bona fide, large-scale administrative reorganization of local bodies to ensure financial and functional viability (Paras 219-223). (H) Ward delimitation without census - Redetermination of municipal ward boundaries without a fresh census enumeration or any alteration in the total population or territorial limits of the municipality is contrary to the statutory mandate and impermissible (Paras 174-177).
Facts of the case:
Numerous petitions challenged a statewide exercise of delimitation and reorganization of rural and urban local bodies. The process led to the inclusion or exclusion of various areas from local bodies, the resulting removal of elected representatives from office, the appointment of administrators, and the postponement of elections. Petitioners alleged that the state disregarded administrative guidelines and violated the principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that delimitation notifications are conditional legislation and thus generally immune from merit-based judicial review. The guidelines cited by petitioners were held to be non-statutory and unenforceable. The removal of representatives was deemed a legal consequence of boundary changes. The appointment of administrators and the postponement of elections for systemic reorganization were held to be valid exercises of executive and statutory power. However, the Court found that altering municipal ward boundaries without a fresh census was illegal.
Issues: Whether final delimitation notifications are subject to judicial review; whether administrative guidelines regarding delimitation are legally binding; whether the principles of natural justice apply to the delimitation process; the legal effect of boundary changes on the tenure of elected members; the validity of appointing former members as administrators; and whether elections can be postponed for reorganization purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: Delimitation is a legislative function, rendering it immune from interference except in cases of manifest arbitrariness. Mandamus cannot enforce non-statutory administrative instructions. Statutory membership ceases automatically upon the removal of the represented area from the local body's jurisdiction. Deferment of elections is justified when a bona fide large-scale reorganization is required for administrative efficiency.
Result: The writ petitions challenging the final notifications and administrator appointments are dismissed; the removal of representatives is upheld; the change of internal municipal ward boundaries without a census is disallowed; and the state is directed to conduct simultaneous elections for all local bodies on or before 15.04.2026.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points from the Judgment
-
The judgment addresses a large number of writ petitions and special appeals challenging the delimitation of Panchayati Raj Institutions and Municipalities in Rajasthan, including inclusions/exclusions of areas, ward boundaries, and related electoral processes under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (!) .
-
Local self-governance in India involves three tiers: Union, State, and Local Bodies, with Panchayats for rural areas (Part IX, Articles 243-243O, Eleventh Schedule) and Municipalities for urban areas (Part IX-A, Twelfth Schedule), emphasizing democratic participation and accountability (!) (!) .
-
The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, implement constitutional mandates for local bodies, with delimitation powers vested in the State Government for territorial adjustments and elections (!) (!) .
-
The litigation arises from state-wide delimitation efforts initiated in 2024-2025, affecting Panchayats and Municipalities due to district reorganizations, COVID-19 disruptions, and a policy for unified elections, leading to challenges on grounds like procedural irregularities and arbitrary actions (!) (!) .
-
Key issues include: maintainability of challenges to final delimitation notifications; scope of judicial review under Article 226; statutory nature of guidelines; locus standi of petitioners; compliance with natural justice principles; and constitutional obligations for timely elections (!) (!) .
-
Petitioners argue notifications violate Article 243E (five-year term for local bodies) and Article 243U (timely elections), lack prior consultation with State Election Commission, and ignore guidelines on population, distance, and facilities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Respondents contend that delimitation notifications are conditional legislation, immune from judicial interference except in cases of manifest arbitrariness; guidelines are administrative, not statutory; and elections are postponed bona fide due to reorganization for efficiency and financial viability (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Article 243O(a) and 243ZG(a) bar courts from questioning delimitation laws or seat allotments made under Articles 243K and 243ZA; Section 117 of the 1994 Act and Section 30 of the 2009 Act similarly prohibit interference in delimitation or electoral matters (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to procedural irregularities, perversity, or arbitrariness in decision-making, not merits; delimitation notifications are legislative acts not open to challenge except in rare cases of constitutional violation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Guidelines for delimitation (e.g., population 3000-5500, 6 km distance, facilities) are administrative instructions, not statutory rules under Section 102 of the 1994 Act or equivalent provisions, and deviations do not vitiate notifications (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Petitioners have locus standi to challenge delimitation if rights are affected, as notices under Section 101(1) of the 1994 Act invite public input; mere administrative guidelines do not bar writs (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
No statutory mandate requires hearing or reasoned orders on objections under Section 101; process is legislative, not quasi-judicial, so natural justice principles like audi alteram partem do not apply (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Challenges to final notifications on grounds like population/distance deviations, political motivation, or non-consultation with State Election Commission fail, as decisions involve subjective satisfaction and holistic factors (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Direct inclusion of rural areas into municipalities under Section 3 of the 2009 Act does not require prior transitional area declaration under Article 243Q(2); overriding provisions apply (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Petitions challenging ongoing delimitation process (pre-final notification) are premature; no interference until final notification (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Interim order dated 23.05.2025 directing High-Level Committee to adjudicate objections is set aside; proposals must be considered objectively, but no judicial oversight required (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Delimitation of municipal wards without census change or boundary alteration is invalid under Sections 6, 9, 10 of the 2009 Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Pradhan vacates office upon ward exclusion from Panchayat Samiti under Section 101(5A) of 1994 Act and Section 3(8) of 2009 Act; no continuation despite representing broader area (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Administrator appointments under Section 95(1)(b) of 1994 Act and Section 322(3)(b) of 2009 Act are valid; outgoing Sarpanch can serve as Administrator, distinct from urban bodies (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Village headquarters selection is administrative; guidelines for facilities/distance are non-statutory, not judicially reviewable (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Elections must follow constitutional mandate (Articles 243E, 243U); postponement justified by bona fide reorganization, but must be held post-delimitation by 15.04.2026 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
Final directions: dismiss challenges to final notifications; no interference in ongoing processes; prohibit ward boundary changes without census/boundary alteration; complete delimitation by 31.12.2025; hold elections by 15.04.2026 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners (in Jaipur Bench): Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Digvijay Rajawat & Mr. Nikhil Saini, Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nathu Singh Chauhan, Mr. S.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Surabhi Agarwal & Mr. Lokendra Sharma, Mr. Virender Godara, Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Mr. Rahul Kamwar with Mr. Bharat Kumar Todi, Mr. Vaibhav Nirwal and, Mr. Trinath Sharma, Mr. Pardeep Malik, Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya, Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania and Ms. Sushila Kalwania, Mr. Indresh Sharma with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Shalini Yadav, Mr. S.N. Kumawat and Ms. Shivani Paliwal, Mr. Sunil Samdaria along with Mr. Arihant Samdaria and Mr. Ramesh Chand Bairwa, Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan, Mr. Ajathshatru Mina with Ms. Parneet Kaur, Mr. Movil Jeenwal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Niti Jindal and Mr. Nrip Raj Singh, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sh. Sanwar Mal Chaudhary, present in person with Mr. Vikash Ghosalya Mr. Bajrang Sepat on behalf of Ms. Komal Kumari Giri, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini, Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Vijay Pathak and Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal, Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Sanjay Sharma with Mr. Ravindra Singh, Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Mr. Gajanand Yadav, Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Palash Gupta, Ms. Naina Saraf with Mr. Pritam Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Mr. M.S. Raghav with Mr. Vishwas Saini, Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Mr. Punit Singhvi along with Mr. Ayush Singh, Mr. Ajay S. Rathore, Ms. Shraddha Mehta, Ms. Mihir Jangid, Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal and Mr. Naman Dadhich, Mr. Ashish Kishore Saksena, Mr. Bharat Yadav, Mr. R.D. Meena, Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Mr. Kawal Singh Loha, Mr. Arvind Kumar Bansheewal, Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Ms. Bhavana Laddha, Mr. Fahad Hasan, Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal, Mr. Kunal Jaiman with Mr. Meyhul Mittal, Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Mr. Mahipat Lal Meena with Mr. Rajendra Singh, Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal, Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi, Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Mr. Dilip Sharma, Mr. Bhavya Kala on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Kala, Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda, Ms. Manisha Dewanda, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Ajay Poonia, Mr. Anikate Jangid, Mr. Rahul Singh and Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Ravi Kumar Palsaniya with Mr. Anilendra Pandey (through V.C.), Mr. Amit Kumar Gautam, Mr. Pradeep Mathur.
For the Petitioners (appearing in Jodhpur through VC):Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh, Shekhawat, AAAG, Ms. Harshita, Thakral, Ms. Dhriti Laddha and Mr. Tanay Goyal, Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki, AAAG & Mr. Pawan Bharti, AAAG, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Panwar (Sr. Adv.), AAG, assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Ravindra Puri Goswami, AGC, Ms. Monal Chugh, Ms. Meenal Singhvi, Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG with Mr. Arpit Samara, AAAG & Ms. Khushi Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Harshit Burani and Ms. Kamini Joshi, Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Ram Dayal, Mr. Madan Beniwal, Mr. Sanjay, Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja and Ms. Harger Kaur, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shreyansh Bhandari, Mr. Aniket Tater, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Mr. Pranjal Babel on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Nahar, Mr. Pushkar Taimni, Mr. Pranav Bhardwaj, Mr. Avik Aggarwal, Mr. Nishant Gaba, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, Mr. Chatur Bhuj, Mr. Pradhuman Singh, Mr. Pritam Joshi, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Shailendra Gwala, Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Vikas Choudhary, Mr. Sumer Singh Gour, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary, Mr. D.L.R. Vyas, Mr. J.S. Naruka, Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. Punit Choudhary, Mr. Aashish Jakhar, Mr. Sumit Fageria, Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit, Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi, Mr. Binja Ram Jajra, Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Ramavtar Singh Choudhary, Mr. Siddharth Mewara and Mr. Prashant Kachchhawa for Mr. Moti Singh, Mr. Hemendra Singh Sever, Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat, Mr. Ram Dev Potalia, Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Mr. A.R. Godara, Mr. Dhan Raj Vaishnav, Ms. Rajani Choudhary, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Mr. Pradyuman Rajpurohit, Mr. K.L. Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi Singhvi on behalf of Mr. Deelip Kawadia Mr. Aidan Choudhary, Mr. Prashant Kachiwal, Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Ms. Tuli Taniya Raman Ekta, Mr. Mehta Jubin Pankaj Sarika, Dr. Laxman Singh Bhati, Mr. Shahbaz Khan, Mr. Suresh Nehra, Dr. Ashok Choudhary, Mr. D.D. Godara, Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri, Mr. Shyam Sunder Paliwal, Mr. Deepak Sarswat, Mr. Harshit Khatri, Mr. Sahee Ram Mundel, Mr. Ikbal Khan, Mr. Kamal Kishore Bissa, Mr. Gajendra Singh Chouhan, Mr. Hargovind Chanda, Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria, Mr. Sukhdev, Mr. Vishwas Khatri for Dr. Mohit Singhvi, Mr. Peerane Khan, Mr. Abdul Kadir, Mr. R.J. Punia, Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek, Mr. Aashish Kumar, Mr. Saransh Vij, Mr. Avdhesh Parashar with Mr. Kanishk Singhvi, Mr. Pratap Singh, Mr. Shiv Singh, Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha, Mr. Divik Mathur, Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Mr. Shiv Lal Barwar, Mr. Ratan Ankiya, Mr. Bhim Raj Mudia, Ms. Anuradha (through V.C.) Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Yashveer Singh with Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore, Mr. Ashok Kumar Godara, Ms. Alka Pandey, Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit, Mr. Manish Tak, Mr. Khatri Vishwash Girish with Mr. Krishan Singh Rathore, Mr. Swaroop Singh Sisodia, Mr. Kishore Kumar, Mr. Rameshwar Prashad Sharma, Mr. Anada Ram Beniwal, Mr. Shanker Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. C.R. Choudhary, Mr. Rekha Ram Choudhary, Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri, Mr. Raghunath Bishnoi, Mr. Manjeet Godara, Mr. Sohan Lal Jain, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. VLS Rajpurohit, Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, Mr. Kapil Bissa, Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Manish Bhunwal, Mr. Ashok Godara, Mr. Bharat Rajpurohit, Mr. Gorkh Singh for Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag, Mr. A.R. Godara, Mr. Khitij Vyas, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Trivedi, Mr. S.R. Godara, Mr. Sunil Dhaka, Mr. Devi Lal Rawla, Mr. P.K. Rawla, Mr. Himanshu Shrimali, Mr. Roshan Lal, Mr. Himanshu Pareek and Mr. Naman Mohnot, Ms. Laxmi Rathore.
For the Respondents (appearing in Jaipur Bench):Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, General assisted by Ms. Harshita, Thakral, Mr. Tanay Goyal, Ms. Dhriti, Laddha and Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Ms. Shikha Sharma on behalf of Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG, Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG, assisted by Mr. Saurabh Sharma and Ms. Divya Rathore, Mr. Surendra Kumar Saini, Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Mr. Falak Mathur and Mr. Salim Khan Gori, Ms. Poonam Rao on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Batra, Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Mr. Azad Ahmed, Mr. S.K. Panwar.
For the Respondents (appearing in Jodhpur through VC):Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, AAAG, Ms. Harshita Thakral, Ms. Dhriti Laddha and Mr. Tanay Goyal, Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki, AAAG and Mr. Pawan Bharti, AAAG. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Panwar (Sr. Adv.), AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Ravindra Puri Goswami, AGC, Ms. Monal Chugh, Ms. Meenal Singhvi, Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG with Mr. Arpit Samara, AAAG & Ms. Khushi Sharma, Mr. Sharwan Godara for Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC, Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. K.L. Vishnoi (Caveator), Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Ms. Laxmi Rathore, Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Mr. Ramniwas Haniya, Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria, Mr. VLS Rajpurohit, Mr. Keshav Bhati.
For the Petitioners (in Jaipur Bench): Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Digvijay Rajawat & Mr. Nikhil Saini, Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nathu Singh Chauhan, Mr. S.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Surabhi Agarwal & Mr. Lokendra Sharma, Mr. Virender Godara, Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Mr. Rahul Kamwar with Mr. Bharat Kumar Todi, Mr. Vaibhav Nirwal and, Mr. Trinath Sharma, Mr. Pardeep Malik, Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya, Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania and Ms. Sushila Kalwania, Mr. Indresh Sharma with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Shalini Yadav, Mr. S.N. Kumawat and Ms. Shivani Paliwal, Mr. Sunil Samdaria along with Mr. Arihant Samdaria and Mr. Ramesh Chand Bairwa, Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan, Mr. Ajathshatru Mina with Ms. Parneet Kaur, Mr. Movil Jeenwal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Niti Jindal and Mr. Nrip Raj Singh, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sh. Sanwar Mal Chaudhary, present in person with Mr. Vikash Ghosalya Mr. Bajrang Sepat on behalf of Ms. Komal Kumari Giri, Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini, Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Vijay Pathak and Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal, Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Sanjay Sharma with Mr. Ravindra Singh, Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Mr. Gajanand Yadav, Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman, Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Palash Gupta, Ms. Naina Saraf with Mr. Pritam Singh, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Mr. M.S. Raghav with Mr. Vishwas Saini, Mr. Ashok Bansal with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Mr. Punit Singhvi along with Mr. Ayush Singh, Mr. Ajay S. Rathore, Ms. Shraddha Mehta, Ms. Mihir Jangid, Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal and Mr. Naman Dadhich, Mr. Ashish Kishore Saksena, Mr. Bharat Yadav, Mr. R.D. Meena, Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Mr. Kawal Singh Loha, Mr. Arvind Kumar Bansheewal, Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Ms. Bhavana Laddha, Mr. Fahad Hasan, Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal, Mr. Kunal Jaiman with Mr. Meyhul Mittal, Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, Mr. Mahipat Lal Meena with Mr. Rajendra Singh, Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal, Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi, Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Mr. Dilip Sharma, Mr. Bhavya Kala on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Kala, Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda, Ms. Manisha Dewanda, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Ajay Poonia, Mr. Anikate Jangid, Mr. Rahul Singh and Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Ravi Kumar Palsaniya with Mr. Anilendra Pandey (through V.C.), Mr. Amit Kumar Gautam, Mr. Pradeep Mathur.
For the Petitioners (appearing in Jodhpur through VC):Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh, Shekhawat, AAAG, Ms. Harshita, Thakral, Ms. Dhriti Laddha and Mr. Tanay Goyal, Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki, AAAG & Mr. Pawan Bharti, AAAG, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Panwar (Sr. Adv.), AAG, assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Ravindra Puri Goswami, AGC, Ms. Monal Chugh, Ms. Meenal Singhvi, Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG with Mr. Arpit Samara, AAAG & Ms. Khushi Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Harshit Burani and Ms. Kamini Joshi, Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Ram Dayal, Mr. Madan Beniwal, Mr. Sanjay, Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja and Ms. Harger Kaur, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shreyansh Bhandari, Mr. Aniket Tater, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Mr. Pranjal Babel on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Nahar, Mr. Pushkar Taimni, Mr. Pranav Bhardwaj, Mr. Avik Aggarwal, Mr. Nishant Gaba, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, Mr. Chatur Bhuj, Mr. Pradhuman Singh, Mr. Pritam Joshi, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Shailendra Gwala, Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Vikas Choudhary, Mr. Sumer Singh Gour, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary, Mr. D.L.R. Vyas, Mr. J.S. Naruka, Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. Punit Choudhary, Mr. Aashish Jakhar, Mr. Sumit Fageria, Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit, Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi, Mr. Binja Ram Jajra, Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Ramavtar Singh Choudhary, Mr. Siddharth Mewara and Mr. Prashant Kachchhawa for Mr. Moti Singh, Mr. Hemendra Singh Sever, Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat, Mr. Ram Dev Potalia, Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Mr. A.R. Godara, Mr. Dhan Raj Vaishnav, Ms. Rajani Choudhary, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Mr. Pradyuman Rajpurohit, Mr. K.L. Chauhan, Ms. Nidhi Singhvi on behalf of Mr. Deelip Kawadia Mr. Aidan Choudhary, Mr. Prashant Kachiwal, Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Ms. Tuli Taniya Raman Ekta, Mr. Mehta Jubin Pankaj Sarika, Dr. Laxman Singh Bhati, Mr. Shahbaz Khan, Mr. Suresh Nehra, Dr. Ashok Choudhary, Mr. D.D. Godara, Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri, Mr. Shyam Sunder Paliwal, Mr. Deepak Sarswat, Mr. Harshit Khatri, Mr. Sahee Ram Mundel, Mr. Ikbal Khan, Mr. Kamal Kishore Bissa, Mr. Gajendra Singh Chouhan, Mr. Hargovind Chanda, Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria, Mr. Sukhdev, Mr. Vishwas Khatri for Dr. Mohit Singhvi, Mr. Peerane Khan, Mr. Abdul Kadir, Mr. R.J. Punia, Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek, Mr. Aashish Kumar, Mr. Saransh Vij, Mr. Avdhesh Parashar with Mr. Kanishk Singhvi, Mr. Pratap Singh, Mr. Shiv Singh, Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha, Mr. Divik Mathur, Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Mr. Shiv Lal Barwar, Mr. Ratan Ankiya, Mr. Bhim Raj Mudia, Ms. Anuradha (through V.C.) Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Yashveer Singh with Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore, Mr. Ashok Kumar Godara, Ms. Alka Pandey, Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit, Mr. Manish Tak, Mr. Khatri Vishwash Girish with Mr. Krishan Singh Rathore, Mr. Swaroop Singh Sisodia, Mr. Kishore Kumar, Mr. Rameshwar Prashad Sharma, Mr. Anada Ram Beniwal, Mr. Shanker Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. C.R. Choudhary, Mr. Rekha Ram Choudhary, Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri, Mr. Raghunath Bishnoi, Mr. Manjeet Godara, Mr. Sohan Lal Jain, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. VLS Rajpurohit, Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, Mr. Kapil Bissa, Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Manish Bhunwal, Mr. Ashok Godara, Mr. Bharat Rajpurohit, Mr. Gorkh Singh for Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag, Mr. A.R. Godara, Mr. Khitij Vyas, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Trivedi, Mr. S.R. Godara, Mr. Sunil Dhaka, Mr. Devi Lal Rawla, Mr. P.K. Rawla, Mr. Himanshu Shrimali, Mr. Roshan Lal, Mr. Himanshu Pareek and Mr. Naman Mohnot, Ms. Laxmi Rathore.
For the Respondents (appearing in Jaipur Bench):Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, General assisted by Ms. Harshita, Thakral, Mr. Tanay Goyal, Ms. Dhriti, Laddha and Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Ms. Shikha Sharma on behalf of Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG, Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG, assisted by Mr. Saurabh Sharma and Ms. Divya Rathore, Mr. Surendra Kumar Saini, Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Mr. Falak Mathur and Mr. Salim Khan Gori, Ms. Poonam Rao on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Batra, Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Mr. Azad Ahmed, Mr. S.K. Panwar.
For the Respondents (appearing in Jodhpur through VC):Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, AAAG, Ms. Harshita Thakral, Ms. Dhriti Laddha and Mr. Tanay Goyal, Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki, AAAG and Mr. Pawan Bharti, AAAG. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Panwar (Sr. Adv.), AAG assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, Mr. Ravindra Puri Goswami, AGC, Ms. Monal Chugh, Ms. Meenal Singhvi, Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG with Mr. Arpit Samara, AAAG & Ms. Khushi Sharma, Mr. Sharwan Godara for Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC, Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. K.L. Vishnoi (Caveator), Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Ms. Laxmi Rathore, Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Mr. Ramniwas Haniya, Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria, Mr. VLS Rajpurohit, Mr. Keshav Bhati.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued delimitation was arbitrary and violated constitutional mandates; State argued it was a valid legislative exercise for administrative efficiency. (Para 13 , 14 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
3. Delimitation is conditional legislation; judicial review is limited to manifest arbitrariness. Guidelines are administrative, not statutory. Principles of natural justice do not apply. (Para 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 )
4. Final delimitation notifications are legislative acts barred from challenge under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG; writ jurisdiction is limited to judicial review. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 )
5. Are final notifications for delimitation of Panchayat and Municipal areas challengeable under Article 226 of the Constitution?
No, the bar under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution prohibits courts from questioning the validity of laws relating to delimitation of constituencies. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 )
6. Can the High Court review the merits of a final delimitation notification?
Judicial review is limited to checking manifest arbitrariness or procedural infirmity; the court cannot examine the merits of the decision or substitute its own view. (Para 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 )
7. Are administrative guidelines for delimitation legally enforceable?
No, such guidelines are administrative instructions lacking statutory force and do not confer enforceable rights on citizens. Their non-adherence is not a valid ground to challenge the final notification. (Para 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 )
JUDGMENT :
PART I - PREFACE
(a) CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY SCHEME RELATING TO LOCAL SELF INSTITUTIONS
1. The governance mechanism in India was largely with the Union of India and the States and Union Territories, under the Constitution. However, urban local self governance and organisation of Village Panchayats was an aspiration as envisaged under Article 40 of the Constitution wherein it was provided that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.
2. The concept of self governance was initially regulated and controlled by the executive of the States. The Parliament while bringing out amendment in the Constitution inserting Part-IXA, under its objects and reasons, recognized that the system as was being followed, was pleased with many vices and could not acquire the status and dignity of responsible people bodies.
3. Accordingly, Part-IX introduce a three tier system of Panchayat Raj Institutions at Village, intermediate and district levels, while Part-IXA introduce a system of three types of municipalities based on the size of urban areas, the lowest being an area of transition from rural area to an urban area. Articles243B and 243Q mandated institutions of local governance in the States based on ratio between population and territorial areas and number of cities. It also provided for reservation for different sections of society which deserve representation as per population. With the amendment, the governance stands distributed in between Union, States and Local Self Governance with a separate sphere of functioning as per the schedules to the Constitution.
4. While the three governance have to act in tandem with each other, the Indian federalism puts more stress on overall governance to the Union, followed by the State Government and then the local governance amongst the local bodies which, of course, has to be under the supervision of the States. The functions of the third limb of governance, namely local self governance, have been clearly outlined under Articles 243G, 243H, 243W and 243X, and Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules of the Constitution.
5. Local self governance, thus, treats a District to be a third territorial unit after the Central and the States, and local self governance for various levels under the District comprising of rural and urban areas forms the source of self governance, as envisaged in the Constitution. The essence of democracy, thus, lies in the manner the local authorities function and, therefore, periodical elections at grassroot level become a necessary ingredient. The scope and functional structure of Panchayati Raj and municipal institutions form the basis for conducting such elections. Delimitation of territory, therefore, has an important role in identifying participation of the people at large in a particular territory in representation at Panchayats and municipalities. The State legislature has been empowered to enact laws for all the purposes as envisaged under Part-IXA of the Constitution.
6. Accordingly, the State of Rajasthan legislature enacted Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, to which we may refer at appropriate stage of this judgment. The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1953 and the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Act, 1959 were repealed and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was brought into force w.e.f. 23.4.1994 vide gazette notification. From time to time there have been certain amendments made. Similarly, Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, wherein amendments had been made from time to time by the legislature in consonance with the provisions incorporated in Part IXA of the Constitution, was repealed and the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, was enacted by the State legislature vide notification dated 11.9.2009 w.e.f. 15.9.2009, which comprehensively deal with all the aspects relating to local sel
