23 July 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a recent ruling of Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v/s Union of India & Others, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of judicial review concerning the delimitation of constituencies. The case involved an appellant challenging the 2006 delimitation exercise that reserved the Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency in Gujarat for the Scheduled Caste community. The High Court of Gujarat had previously dismissed the writ petition, citing Article 329 of the Constitution, which restricts judicial interference in electoral matters.

High Court's Decision:

The Gujarat High Court had relied heavily on Article 329(a) of the Indian Constitution, which stipulates:

"329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters — Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution:

 

 

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court."

The High Court's decision was based on the premise that judicial review of the Delimitation Commission’s order was impermissible. The Commission’s order had received the President's assent, and the High Court concluded that Article 329(a) barred any judicial scrutiny of such orders.

Supreme Court's Examination:

On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's judgment and the scope of Article 329(a). While the Court agreed that Article 329(a) restricts judicial scrutiny of laws related to delimitation, it emphasized that this restriction does not extend to every action of the Delimitation Commission. The Court noted that a complete bar on judicial intervention could leave citizens with no recourse to address grievances, undermining the role of the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional values.

The Court's decision drew on precedents set by earlier cases. In Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), the Court had established that judicial intervention could occur in cases of mala fide or arbitrary actions related to elections. Similarly, in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh (2021), the Court reaffirmed that Article 329(a) does not entirely preclude judicial review.

Judicial Review and Delimitation:

The Supreme Court clarified that while the scope of judicial review in delimitation matters is limited, it is not entirely excluded. The Court affirmed that constitutional courts must retain the ability to review delimitation orders to ensure they align with constitutional principles and are not manifestly arbitrary.

The Court examined Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission (1966), which had restricted judicial intervention primarily to prevent delays in the election process. The Supreme Court noted that this decision did not support a complete bar on judicial review but rather aimed to avoid unnecessary delays in elections.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court’s conclusion that barred challenges to the delimitation order. The Court decided that while the appellant might approach the High Court considering subsequent developments, no immediate grounds for interfering with the 2006 delimitation exercise and its resulting reservation were found.

  DELIMITATION ACT, 2002