Important Point
In terms of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution, there is complete and absolute bar in considering any matter relating to Municipal Election on any ground whatsoever after the publication of the notification for holding Municipal Election and the validity of the laws relating to delimitation and allotment of seats made under Article 243-ZA cannot be questioned in any Court.

Headnote:Elections - Constitution of India - Article 243-ZG - Municipal Election - Notification for holding-Writ petition challenging notification-Maintainability-No election to a Municipality can be questioned except by an election petition-If election is imminent and well underway-Court should not intervene to stop the election process-Validity of laws relating to delimitation and allotment of seats made under Article 243-ZA cannot be questioned in any Court-Imminence of electoral process is a factor which must guide and govern passing of court orders-Latest available census figures had to be the basis for delimitation of constituencies, preparation of electoral rolls and also for reservation of seats for SCs, STs and women-When census figures of such people not available-Survey made by State Government for finding out number of persons belonging to backward classes not contrary to law. (Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959) (Paras 9, 11, 24, 25, 26)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

Complete Bar on Judicial Interference: There is a complete and absolute bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution on considering any matter relating to Municipal Elections on any ground whatsoever after the publication of the notification for holding the election. (!)
Validity of Delimitation Laws: The validity of laws relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats made under Article 243-ZA cannot be questioned in any Court. (!)
Exclusivity of Election Petitions: No election to a Municipality can be called in question except by an election petition presented to the authority and in the manner provided by State law. (!)
Imminence of Election Process: If an election is imminent or well underway, the Court should not intervene to stop the election process to prevent indefinite postponement. (!)
Basis for Delimitation and Reservations: The latest available census figures must be the basis for delimitation of constituencies, preparation of electoral rolls, and reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and women. (!)
Survey for Backward Classes: Where census figures for Backward Classes (BC) are not available, the State Government is empowered to conduct a survey to determine their population for the purpose of seat reservation, which is not contrary to the Constitution. (!)
Procedural History: The elections in Uttar Pradesh were scheduled for November 17–20, 1995, following a High Court direction due to a ten-year lapse since the last election. (!)
Challenge Grounds: Writ petitions were filed challenging the notifications on grounds of defects in electoral rolls, delimitation of wards, and arbitrary reservation of seats for women, SC, ST, and BC. (!)
Conflict within High Court: While the Lucknow Bench dismissed the petitions citing Article 243-ZG, another Division Bench (Allahabad) issued an order stopping the elections, creating a conflicting situation. (!)
Statutory Framework: The Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959 (amended in 1994) provides specific procedures for delimitation, reservation, and objection filing, including a seven-day period for objections to draft orders. (!)
Timing of Challenge: The writ petitions were filed late (October 26, 1995), after the finalization of delimitation orders and the withdrawal deadline for nominations, constituting laches. (!)
Constitutional Mandate for Regular Elections: Holding elections at regular intervals is crucial for democracy, and stalling them based on individual complaints causes grave injustice to the electorate. (!)
Precedent: The principles from Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman regarding the non-intervention of High Courts in imminent elections apply to municipal elections under Part IX-A. (!)
Reservation Rules: Article 243-T mandates reservation for SC, ST, and women, with specific provisions for rotating seats and reserving offices of Chairpersons. (!)
Population Definition: Population for delimitation purposes is defined as that ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published. (!)
Supreme Court Order: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order stopping the elections, directing that the elections proceed as scheduled (with minor postponements for specific dates), and stayed the impugned judgment. (!)

Judgment

Sen, J.-Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 13.11.1995 whereby municipal elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which were scheduled to take place from 17th November to 20th November, 1995, were cancelled and/or postponed. Anugrah Narain Singh, who is a former member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh, and Mrs. Rashid Khan, a candidate for the post of Mayor, Allahabad, are the appellants herein.

3. No municipal election had taken place in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the last ten years. The appellant No. 1 moved a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court praying for a direction upon the State Government to hold elections of the Municipal Corporations by 31st May, 1994. The petition succeeded. The Allahabad High Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold the elections of the Municipal Corporations by 31st July, 1995. On the prayer of the Government, the time was extended till 31st November, 1995 with specific direction to conclude the election by that time. On 11th October, 1995 a notification was issued for holding election for all town areas and Municipal Corporations in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 16th to 20th October of 1995 were the dates within which filing of nominations had to be completed and 24th October, 1995 was fixed as the last date of withdrawal. Voting was to take place in different stages in different areas of the State beginning on 17th and concluding on 20th of November, 1995.

4. The notification dated 11th October, 1995 was amended by a further notification dated 13th October, 1995 by which only the date of withdrawal of the nomination was extended.

5. Ten persons by a Writ Petition (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 29614 of 1995) filed in the Allahabad High Court, challenged the notifications for holding the municipal elections in the State. Fifteen similar petitions were also filed before the Lucknow Bench. The prayers in all these writ petitions mainly were that in view of the defects in the electoral rolls and delimitation of constituencies (wards) and also on the ground of arbitrary reservation of constituencies for women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, the process of election should be postponed. These petitions were filed as soon as the notification for holding elections dated 11th/13th October, 1995 was issued. The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that in view of the bar imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution, the writ jurisdiction of the Court could not be invoked to stall the election process.

6. This judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court (S.H.A. Raza and A.S. Gill, JJ.) in writ petition No. 2997 of 1995 and the other connected cases was placed before the Allahabad High Court in course of hearing of this case, but U.P. Singh and I.M. Qudussi, JJ. passed the impugned order stopping the election process regardless of the judgment and order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court. This was improper. If the Division Bench sitting at Allahabad was of the view that the Lucknow Bench had erred in dismissing the writ petition challenging the holding of the municipal elections, the matter should have been referred to a larger bench. A peculiar situation has come about. According to the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, the writ petitions challenging the municipal elections were not maintainable and elections should take place as scheduled whereas another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view and has directed that the elections should not be held according to the schedule.

7. Another important feature of this case, which was ignored by the High Court, was that the process of reservations for various wards and delimitation of constituencies had been completed before June, 1995. There was ample opportunity under the Act to raise objections before finalisation of the del

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1419

Cases Referred (2)