Summary
The Supreme Court held that Article 329(a) of the Constitution does not wholly bar judicial review of orders of the Delimitation Commission, and set aside the High Court's finding to that effect, but declined to interfere with the 2006 delimitation and reservation of the Bardoli Assembly Constituency given the passage of time and subsequent events.
Issues
- Whether Article 329(a) of the Constitution places a complete bar on judicial review under Article 226 of an order of the Delimitation Commission made under the Delimitation Act, 2002.
- Whether the reservation of the Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency for Scheduled Castes in the 2006 delimitation exercise called for interference.
Provisions considered
- Article 329(a), Constitution of IndiaRead as restricting challenges to the validity of a law relating to delimitation or allotment of seats made under Articles 327 or 328, but not as excluding every challenge to a delimitation exercise; courts may examine Delimitation Commission orders for manifest arbitrariness or inconsistency with constitutional values, within limits and at an appropriate stage. (¶¶ 3, 5, 7, 9)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court's writ jurisdiction was held to extend, within a limited sphere, to orders of delimitation issued under statutory powers. (¶¶ 5, 7)
- Articles 243O and 243ZG, Constitution of IndiaReferred to as provisions mirroring Article 329, which earlier three-judge benches had held do not completely bar judicial intervention where elections need facilitating or mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power is shown. (¶ 6)
- Delimitation Commission Order No. 33 dated 12.12.2006, Delimitation Act, 2002The order reserving the Bardoli constituency was not examined on merits because the exercise dated back to 2006 and a fresh delimitation had since been undertaken. (¶¶ 2, 4, 10)
Held
- Article 329(a) restricts judicial scrutiny of the validity of a law relating to delimitation or seat allotment, but it cannot be read as barring review of every act in a delimitation exercise; a total bar would leave citizens without any forum and at the mercy of the Commission, contrary to the Court's role and the separation of powers. (¶ 5)
- Following Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N. and State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, a constitutional court may test orders of the Delimitation Commission against the Constitution and, if an order is manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable with constitutional values, grant an appropriate remedy, while observing the settled limits of judicial review in delimitation matters. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission does not lay down a complete bar; it restrained judicial intervention where it would needlessly delay the election process, and judicial review remains available within a limited sphere at an appropriate stage. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Given that the delimitation was carried out in 2006 and a fresh exercise had since taken place, the Court did not examine the merits of the Commission's order and found no present ground to interfere with the delimitation or the consequential reservation. (¶¶ 4, 10)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; the High Court's finding that the delimitation order could not be challenged was set aside; appellant left free to approach the High Court in light of subsequent events; no interference with the 2006 delimitation and reservation.