Summary
The Supreme Court declined to disturb the setting aside of Goa municipal ward reservations on the exceptional facts, including an attempt to overreach the High Court and lack of an independent State Election Commissioner. Women’s reservation could not fall below one-third by rounding fractions down. The Court explained the constitutional limits on electoral judicial review and directed that State Election Commissioners across India must be independent persons holding no Central or State government office. Fresh reservation orders and elections were directed on revised timelines.
Issues
- How the constitutional bars to electoral review applied to ward reservation orders and ongoing municipal elections.
- Whether fractional seats could be rounded down below the minimum women’s reservation.
- Whether a serving government Law Secretary could hold additional charge as State Election Commissioner.
Provisions considered
- Articles 243ZG and 243ZA, Constitution of IndiaThe Court distinguished review of delimitation laws from subordinate orders and explained the limits on intervention during elections and the Commission’s corrective powers. (¶¶ 27, 30, 52-67)
- Article 243T, Constitution of IndiaThe minimum one-third reservation for women required any fraction to be rounded upwards. (¶¶ 25, 64)
- Section 9, Goa Municipalities Act, 1968The reservation order failed the applicable women’s and OBC reservation requirements and the rotation scheme. (¶¶ 31, 64)
- Articles 243K and 142, Constitution of IndiaNationwide directions required independent State Election Commissioners who did not occupy Central or State government posts or offices. (¶¶ 28, 68)
Held
- From election notification to results, courts ordinarily cannot interrupt, obstruct or protract the election; measures facilitating its progress remain possible. Before notification, even if elections are imminent, intervention is discretionary. Constitutional judicial supervision of election tribunal decisions remains available. (¶ 63)
- Article 243ZG(a) bars questioning delimitation and seat-allocation laws. Orders under those laws may be reviewed where the statute does not confer legislative status on them; the Goa statute contained no such conferment. (¶ 63-64)
- The State Election Commission must address constitutional or statutory infractions and can direct corrective action or seek assistance from constitutional courts. The electoral bars addressed to courts do not disable its own constitutional responsibilities. (¶¶ 52, 63)
- The constitutional minimum for women’s seats required rounding any fraction upwards. The Court also found no fault with the High Court’s findings concerning the applicable OBC reservation, ST allocation and rotation failures. (¶ 64)
- Counsel’s concession could not waive a constitutional bar. Nevertheless, exceptional circumstances—including the Commissioner’s dependence on the government, prior assurances, withheld scheduling information and an attempt to forestall the hearing—justified declining interference under Article 136. (¶ 65-66)
- A government-controlled officer could not receive additional charge as the independent State Election Commissioner. Under Article 142, all States were directed to appoint independent persons holding no Central or State government office, with any current incompatible incumbents to step down. (¶ 68)
- The High Court’s directions survived with ten days from this judgment for fresh reservation orders and 30 April 2021 for completing elections. The subsequent schedule notification of 4 March 2021 was separately struck down. (¶¶ 67-69, Writ Petition 309/2021: 1-2)
Result
Appeals disposed of with modified timelines and nationwide directions on independent State Election Commissioners. Connected writ petition allowed; 4 March 2021 notification struck down.