Summary
The Supreme Court rejected constitutional challenges to Gujarat’s multi-member municipal wards. Articles 243R and 243S do not require only one representative per ward; provisions governing Ward Committees do not restrict the municipality’s composition in that manner. The challenged statutory and rule provisions were upheld, and the Court rejected the claim that multiple representatives defeated reserved-category empowerment. The notification challenge also failed because it confused a ward-and-seat determination with separate draft-rule amendments. A connected appeal about postponed 2015 elections was dismissed as infructuous.
Issues
- Whether Articles 243R and 243S prohibit multi-member municipal wards.
- Whether the challenged arrangement undermined reserved-category representation or unlawfully curtailed the draft-rule objection period.
- Whether the connected challenge concerning the completed 2015 elections required adjudication.
Provisions considered
- Articles 243R and 243S, Constitution of IndiaMunicipal composition and Ward Committee composition are distinct; neither provision prohibits more than one elected representative from a ward. (¶¶ 48-55, 59-64)
- Section 5(3)(iii)(a), Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949The power to determine wards, councillors and reserved seats was not inconsistent with the constitutional provisions relied upon. (¶¶ 25, 55, 64, 73-77)
- Rules 4 and 5, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1994The multi-member ward and reservation arrangement survived the constitutional challenge. (¶¶ 27, 55, 64, 66-70)
- Rule 2(b), Gujarat Municipal Wards Committees Functions, Duties, Territorial Areas and Procedure for Transaction of Business Rules, 2007Election of a Chairperson from the Committee members supplemented, rather than contradicted, Article 243S. (¶¶ 28, 55)
Held
- Article 243S governs Ward Committees rather than prescribing a one-member limit for municipal wards. All representatives of a ward may join its Committee, with one elected Chairperson, consistently with the constitutional scheme. (¶¶ 48-55, 63-64)
- The State’s legislative competence over local government was not displaced by an inferred prohibition absent from Part IXA. The impugned provisions, including Section 29A and the challenged rules, were not ultra vires Articles 243R and 243S. (¶¶ 23, 30-36, 55, 64, 77)
- Multiple-member wards did not negate empowerment of women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the arrangement considered. The increased reserved representation strengthened their participation. (¶ 65-70)
- The December 2014 notification determined wards and seats; it was not the finalisation of the November draft rules. Those amendments were notified separately in January 2015 after consideration of objections and suggestions. The premature-notification argument therefore failed. (¶ 71-76)
- The separate appeal against directions concerning the 2015 elections was infructuous because the elections had been held and that local-body tenure had expired. The Court did not decide its underlying issues. (¶ 78)
Result
Constitutional-challenge civil appeal and writ petition dismissed. Connected State Election Commission appeal dismissed as infructuous.