Judicial review in electoral delimitation matters is not completely barred by Article 329; courts can intervene in cases of arbitrary or mala fide actions by the Delimitation Commission.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.09.2012, passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in terms whereof the Writ Petition, filed by the appellant, challenging the delimitation exercise, which resulted into reservation of Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency, Gujarat for Scheduled Caste community was dismissed. The said constituency was reserved by the Delimitation Commission in exercise of its powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002.

3. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, relied upon Article 329 of the Constitution and held that there is a bar to interference by the Court in electorate matters and as such, the appellant’s challenge to the Delimitation Commission’s Order No. 33, dated 12.12.2006, which had received the assent of the President of India, could not be called in question in any court of law. In this manner, the High Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold on the anvil of Article 329(a) of the Constitution, which states:

“329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters — Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution:

(a) 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 article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court.”

4. As regards to the factual dispute and/or merits of the appellant’s claim is concerned, we do not deem it necessary to go into the validity of Commission’s order as the controversy pertains to the delimitation exercise, which was undertaken way back in the year 2006. It is not in dispute that much water has flown under the bridge since then, including the undertaking of a fresh delimitation exercise by the competent authority.

5. We, however, do not approve the view taken by the High Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although Article 329 undeniably restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny re: validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, it cannot be construed to have imposed for every action of delimitation exercise. If judicial intervention is deemed completely barred, citizens would not have any forum to plead their grievances, leaving them solely at the mercy of the Delimitation Commission. As a constitutional court and guardian of public interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary to the Court’s duties and the principle of separation of powers.

6. This understanding is supported by a three-judge bench decision of this Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N., (2020) 6 SCC 548, para 14 where the Court was called upon to interpret Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, which mirror the aforementioned Article 329. Rejecting the contention that these provisions place a complete bar on judicial intervention, it waw noted that a constitutional Court can intervene for facilitating the elections or when a case for mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out. Using this, the Court directed delimitation to be conducted for nine new districts. Recently, a three-judge bench of this Court in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021) 8 SCC 401, para 67 affirmed the ratio of the above-cited decision while discussing principles on Article 329(a), and rejected the contention which sought to prove it as per incuriam.

7. Therefore, while the Courts shall always be guided by the settled principles regarding scope, ambit and limitations on the exercise of judicial review in delimitation matters, there is nothing that precludes them to check the validity of orders passed by Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution. If the order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to