Delimitation Matters Not Beyond Purview Of Judicial Review: Supreme Court Sets Aside Gujarat HC Observations

The Court said that if judicial intervention in any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies is completely barred, citizens would not have any forum to plead their grievances and would be left solely at the mercy of the Delimitation Commission.

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court's decision that dismissed a Writ Petition which contested the delimitation exercise that resulted in reserving the Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency in Gujarat for the Scheduled Caste community.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while noting that 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 the Court observed, “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.”

The Court disapproved the view taken by the High Court in the impugned order where the High Court held that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in the exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“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.”, the Court remarked.

The Court mentioned a three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N. where the Court was called upon to interpret Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, which mirror Article 329. The Court observed, “Rejecting the contention that these provisions place a complete bar on judicial intervention, it was 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.”

The Court said that there is nothing that precludes the Courts from checking the validity of orders passed by the Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution. “If the order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to the constitutional values, the Court can grant the appropriate remedy to rectify the situation.”, the Court said.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, and set aside part of the impugned judgment where it held that there is a bar to challenge the order of delimitation of constituencies.

Cause Title: Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 579)