The determination of population for the purpose of reserving seats for marginalized categories in local body elections must be based strictly on the last preceding census as mandated by the Constitution, and cannot be substituted by dynamic administrative data repositories.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. Challenging the notification dated Sep 04, 2025 (Annexure P-9) along with other connected prayers and seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, the petitioners, whom the State’s counter affidavit dated Apr 03, 2026, refers to as the former Councilors of the Municipal Corporation Panchkula, have come up before the Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The matter was argued on a previous date, when, during the course of the arguments, Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. D.S. Patwalia confined his submissions to challenging the reduction of seats reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category, from ‘4’ in the last elections to ‘3’ in the ensuing elections for the Municipal Corporation Panchkula, in violation of Art 243P(g) and 243T of the Constitution of India and Section 6 of The Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, which is Pari Materia to the Constitutional provisions.

3. Given the above, the response was also sought only to the limited extent, which was handed over by way of an affidavit dated Mar 31, 2026 and counter affidavit dated Apr 03, 2026, by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department, and the same is taken on record.

4. The petitioners’ case is that in the last election held for the ‘20’ wards of the elected body of the Municipal Corporation, Panchkula, the reservation was carved out based on the Census of 2011, and out of the total ‘20’ seats, ‘4’ seats were reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes category.

5. After that, due to a change in the geographical territory of Panchkula, for the upcoming election of the Municipal Corporation Panchkula, although the total number of seats remain the same, but the number of the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes category have been reduced from ‘4’ to ‘3’.

6. The petitioners’ case is that such a change was made during the on-the-spot population survey conducted on the Family Information Data Repository (hereinafter referred to by its abbreviation FIDR) and not based on the last Census of 2011. The petitioners’ claim is that the FIDR was a voluntary scheme to obtain various benefits under Government welfare schemes, and that it could not have replaced the Census, which is a product of Articles 243P(g) and 243T of the Constitution of India and is mandatory before any election process.

7. It shall be appropriate to refer to following portion of the rebuttal affidavit attested on Apr 01, 2026, (which was reply to the State’s first affidavit dated Mar 31, 2026, and subsequently a counter affidavit dated Apr 03, 2026, was filed by the State) filed by the petitioners, which reads as under:-

“7. That it is necessary to submit herein that a copy of 2011 Primary Census Abstract, Data Highlights, Haryana Series-7 Issued by Joint Director of Census Operations Haryana, at Pg. 39 shows that the total percentage of SCs to total population by residence in Panchkula has been recorded as 18.1%. However, despite this for the reasons unknown to petitioners, the said percentage has been stated in para 13 of the written statement to be only 15.51%, which is incorrect because as per explanation provided to Rule 3 of the Delimitation Rules, 1994, the data can only be taken from the last preceding census i.e. the census held in the year 2011. Copy of 2011 Primary Census Abstract, Data Highlights, Haryana Series-7 issued by Joint Director of