Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has upheld its power to review Delimitation Commission orders if they are deemed clearly arbitrary or in violation of constitutional principles. Although judicial review in delimitation cases it is typically restricted, the Court can intervene when an order severely conflicts with constitutional values.

• Held by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the matter of Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India and Ors.

What was the Background of Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India and Ors.?

• The appellant filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the delimitation exercise conducted by the Delimitation Commission.
• The delimitation exercise resulted in the reservation of Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency, Gujarat for the Scheduled Caste community.
• The Delimitation Commission reserved the constituency in exercise of its powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002.
• The Delimitation Commission issued Order No. 33, dated 12.12.2006, which received the assent of the President of India.
• The appellant's writ petition sought to challenge the validity of the Delimitation Commission's order.
• The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold, citing Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India,1950 .
• Article 329(a) of the Constitution states that the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies shall not be called in question in any court.
• The delimitation exercise in question was undertaken in the year 2006.
• The appellant appealed against the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated 21.09.2012 to the Supreme Court.
• The appeal before the Supreme Court pertains to the interpretation of Article 329(a) and the scope of judicial review in matters related to delimitation exercises.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court does not approve the High Court's view that orders of delimitation of constituencies are entirely insusceptible to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• While Article 329 restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of delimitation laws, it cannot be construed as imposing a complete bar on judicial review for every action of the delimitation exercise.
• The Court held that constitutional courts can check the validity of Delimitation Commission orders against the touchstone of the Constitution.
• If a Delimitation Commission order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable with constitutional values, the Court can grant appropriate remedies to rectify the situation.
• The Supreme Court opined that completely barring judicial intervention would leave citizens without any forum to plead their grievances, which would be contrary to the Court's duties and the principle of separation of powers.
• The Court held that constitutional courts can undertake judicial review within a limited sphere at an appropriate stage in delimitation matters.
• The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and set aside paragraph 3 of the High Court's judgment to the extent it held there is a bar to challenging delimitation orders.
• The Court stated that while no grounds were made out to interfere with the 2006 delimitation exercise, the appellant may approach the High Court again if so advised, keeping in view subsequent events.

What is Article 329 of the Constitution?

• About:
  • Article 329 is part of Part XV of the Constitution of India, 1950, which specifically addresses elections.
  • It is included within a series of articles (Articles 324-329) that discuss various aspects of the electoral process, from the conduct of elections to the roles and responsibilities of election officials.
• Judiciary and Electoral Matters
  • Article 329 specifically concerns the role of the judiciary in electoral matters. It outlines the limitations on judicial interference, ensuring that certain electoral processes are shielded from legal challenges, except through specific channels.
• Article 329(a):
  • Prohibition of Judicial Review: Article 329(a) prohibits the judiciary from challenging the constitutionality of laws relating to the delimitation of electoral districts or the allocation of seats to those districts.
• Article 329(b):
  • Amendment History: This clause was amended by the Constitution (39^th Amendment) Act, 1975.
  • Election Petitions: It stipulates that no election to either House of Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall be called into question except through an election petition. Such petitions must be presented to an authority designated by law, made by the appropriate Legislature.
  • Legal Framework: The manner of presenting these petitions must also be in accordance with the law made by the appropriate Legislature. This provision ensures that election-related inquiries are exclusively addressed through the mechanism of election petitions.
• Complementary Legislation
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1951, complements Article 329(b) by empowering high courts to hear and decide election petitions.
  • Decisions made in these petitions by high courts can then be challenged in the Supreme Court of India.

What are Landmark Judgments on Judicial Intervention in Cases Related to Elections?

• Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N., (2020)
  • This case interpreted Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, which are similar to Article 329.
  • It was noted that a constitutional Court can intervene for facilitating elections or when a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out.
• Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others (1966 SCC Online SC 12)
  • This was a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court.
  • The case restricted judicial intervention when it would unnecessarily delay the election process.
  • The Court clarified that this judgment does not support a complete restriction on judicial review in delimitation matters.