Delimitation Commission's Orders Aren't Immune From Judicial Review : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that nothing precludes the constitutional courts from checking the validity of orders passed by the Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution if an order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable to constitutional values.
“Therefore, while the Courts shall always be guided by the settled principles regarding scope, ambit and limitations on the exercise of judicial review in delimitation matters, there is nothing that precludes them to check the validity of orders passed by 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.
The Court said that restraining the constitutional court from invoking the powers of judicial review against every action of delimitation exercise would lead to a situation where the citizens would not have any forum to plead their grievances.
“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. 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 said.
The petitioner had filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the delimitation exercise, which resulted into reservation of Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency, Gujarat for the Scheduled Caste community. The said constituency was reserved by the Delimitation Commission in the exercise of its powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002.
Taking note of Article 329(a) of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the petition on the note that there's a bar to interference by the Court in electorate matters and as such, the appellant's challenge to the Delimitation Commission's Order, which had received the assent of the President of India, could not be called in question in any court of law.
Rejecting the High Court's reasoning, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed as follows:
“We, however, do not approve the view taken by the High Court that the order of delimitation of constituencies, issued in exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, is entirely insusceptible to the powers of judicial review exercisable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although 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, it cannot be construed to have imposed for every action of delimitation exercise.”
Reference was made to the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2020) 6 SCC 548 where the co-ordinate bench of the Supreme Court while interpreting Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, which mirror Article 329, rejected 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 in DMK's case.
Later on, the decision passed in DMK's case received approval by the three-judge bench judgment of State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh reported in LiveLaw 2021 SC 158.
Court Distinguishes Constitutional Bench Judgment of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission To Present Case
The Court distinguished the constitution bench judgment of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission and others reported in 1966 SCC Online SC 12 relied upon by the respondents to support the view taken by the High Court. The court said that in Meghraj Kothari's case, the judicial interference was restricted to avoid unnecessary delay in the election process and the same cannot be relied upon by the respondent to hold that there's a complete bar on the powers of the constitutional courts to interfere with the order of the delimitation commission.
“A closer examination of the aforementioned case [Meghraj Kothari (supra)], however, would show that the Court in that case restricted judicial intervention when the same would unnecessarily delay the election process…. Hence, the aforementioned judgement does not support the respondents' contention regarding complete restriction on judicial review. A constitutional court can undertake the exercise of judicial review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage.”, the court clarified.
Hence, the court set aside the observation of the High Court to the extent it held that there is a bar to challenge the order of delimitation of constituencies.
Case Details: KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHOD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., CIVIL APPEAL No.7930 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 556