Holding

The Delimitation Commission complied with Section 9(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 and its Gazette‑published order is a final law not amenable to judicial review.

Summary

The Delimitation Commission of India, after publishing its proposals for the delimitation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies in Madhya Pradesh, received objections and suggestions and subsequently altered its draft by shifting Mhow Assembly Constituency from Indore Parliamentary Constituency to Dhar Parliamentary Constituency. The appellants, Association of Residents of Mhow, challenged this shift, arguing that the Commission had not complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 9(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 because no specific proposal to move Mhow was published and no objections were raised. The Court examined the statutory requirements of Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act, the need to consider all objections before finalising the delimitation, and the effect of Gazette notification which renders the order a law akin to a parliamentary enactment. It held that the Commission had indeed considered all objections, published its final orders in the Gazette as required, and therefore complied with Section 9(2); the order is final law and not open to judicial review. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Did the Delimitation Commission comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 9(2) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 in shifting Mhow Assembly Constituency?
Is the Gazette notification of the Commission’s final order a law that is beyond judicial scrutiny under Articles 327 and 329 of the Constitution?
Does the absence of a specific published proposal for shifting Mhow render the final order invalid?

Legislation cited

Delimitation Act, 2002s. 10, s. 8, s. 9

Subjects

DelimitationParliamentary ConstituencyAssembly ConstituencySection 9(2)Gazette NotificationJudicial ReviewElection LawMandatory Procedure

Judgment

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 384

A ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR.
v.
THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2009)
MARCH 31, 2009
B
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B.SUDERSHAN
REDDY, JJ.]

Delimitation Act, 2002 - ss. 8, 9 and 10 - Delimitation
C of Parliamentary Constituencies - Shifting of Mhow Assembly
Constituency from Indore Parliamentary Constituency and
including it into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency -
Mandatory requirement u/s. 9(2) - Compliance of - Held:
Commission determined delimitation of Parliamentary
D Constituencies in State of Madhya Pradesh after considering
all objections and suggestions received by it before the
specified date - It got the orders published in Official Gazette
of India and the State which is to be treated as law and is to
be given effect to ·- Thus, mandatory requirements were
E complied with.
The question which arose for consideration in this·
appeal was whether the Commission had complied with
the mandatory requirement as provided for in s. 9(2) of
the Delimitation Act, 2002 while shifting the Mhow
F Assembly Constituency from Indore Parliamentary
Constituency for its inclusion into Dhar Parliamentary
Constituency.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the Commission finally
determined the delimitation of Parliamentary
Constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh after
considering all objections and suggestions received by
H 384
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. 385
DELIMITATION COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS.

it before the specified date and got published its orders A
in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of the
State as is required under Section 10 (1) of the
Delimitation Act, 2002. The orders so published puts
them 'in the same street as a law made by Parliament
itself. Consequently that Notification is to be treated as B
law and required to be given effect to. [Para 25] [402-G-
H; 403-A-B]

2.1 Section 9 (1) of the Act prescribes distribution of
the seats in the House of the People allocated to each C
State and the seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly
of each State as readjusted on the basis of 1971 census
to single-member territorial constituencies and delimit
them on the basis of the census figures as ascertained,
at the census held in the year 1991. Section itself provides
the factors to be taken into consideration including the D
provisions of the Constitution, the provisions of the Act
specified in Section 8. [Para 16) [395-G-H]

2.2. The proposals for delimitation published under
Section 9 (2) of the Act are with regard to the whole of E
the State. The proposals are not a constituency-centric
one. Determining the delimitation of Parliamentary
Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies is a very
complex and lengthy process. Section 9 (1) of the Act
mandates the Commission as to what are the factors F
apart from the provisions of the Constitution and
provisions of the Act required to be taken into
consideration. The determination of the delimitation of
Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly
Constituencies, as the case may be, shall be only after G
consideration of all objections and suggestions which
may have been received by the Commission before the
specified date for which purposes the Commission may
hold one or more public sittings at such place or places
in each State as it thinks fit. The Commission is not
r
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A required to hold public meeting in each and every
Parliamentary Constituency. What the Commission
required is to consider the objections and suggestions
for its proposals before determining the delimitation of
tile constituencies in the entire State. The proposals
B cannot emanate from any interested person. The
distinction between the Commission's proposals and
objections and suggestions in response to such
proposals is to be borne in mind. Every suggestion or
objection cannot ultimately result in any fresh proposal
c by the Commission. The Commission is not under any
legal or Constitutional obligation to go on issuing any
revised proposals depending upon every objection and
suggestion as may be received by it in response to its
proposals. Since the exercise of the delimitation is not
with reference to any particular constituency, the +
0
suggestions or objections, as the case may be, in respect
of one constituency may have their impact at least on one
_,·
or more of the adjoining constituencies. (Para 18) (397-
B-H; 398-A]
E 2.3. In the instant case, various objections were
lodged and suggestions were made as to why Depalpur
Assembly Constituency is to be included in 10,_dore
Parliamentary Constituency in which the Commission
found merit and those suggestions do have a direct
F bearing on the delimitation of Indore Parliamentary
Constituency as well. The cascading effect cannot be
avoided. The Commission could not have retained
Depalpur Assembly Constituency and as well as Mhow
Assembly Constituency in Indore Parliamentary
G Constituency in which event Indore Parliamentary
Constituency would have 9 Assembly Constituencies
while Dhar Parliamentary Constituency would have only
7 Assembly Constituencies resulting in avoidable
malappropriation. [Para 18) (398-A-C]
H
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. 387
DELIMITATION COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS.
2.4. The Commission's power to determine A
delimitation of the constituency is not unlimited but is
structured by the provisions of the Act and more
particularly by Sections 8 and 9 of the Act apart from the
Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 and
Constitution (Eighty-seventh Amendment) Act, 2003 B
which have, inter alia, amended Articles 81, 82, 170, 330
and 332 of the Constitution of India. The effect of these
amendments to the Constitution inter alia is that each
Parliamentary Constituency in each State shall be an
integral multiple of the number of seats comprised therein c
and no Assembly Constituency shall extend to more than
one Parliamentary Constituency. The Commission
appears to have determined the delimitation of both Dhar
and Indore Parliamentary Constituencies in such a
manner whereby each of the Parliamentary Constituency
0
shall consist of equal number of 8 Assembly
Constituencies. It appears the Commission had also
.___
. taken into consideration the contiguity, geographical
features, public convenience etc. before finally
determining the delimitation of both the Parliamentary E
Constituencies. There is no illegality to have been
committed by the Commission. [Para 18) (398-C-G]

State of U.P. vs. Pradhan Singh Khesttra Samiti 1995
suppl. (2) SCC 305 and Meghr1j Kothari vs. De/imitation
Commission & Ors. (1967) 1 SCR 400, referred to. F
Case Law Reference:

-- 1995 suppl. (2) SCC 305 Referred to
(1967) 1 SCR400 Referred to
Para 20
Para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G

2047 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2008 of the
H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in
W.P. No. 13509 of 2007.

Prashant Bhushan and Rohit Kumar Singh for the
Appellants.

B Ashok Desai, Meenakshi Arora and Suvrajyoti Gupta for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and
order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
dismissing the W.P. (c) No. 13509 of 2007 filed by the
appellants herein.
D
INTRODUCTION:

3. The periodic readjustment of the Lok Sabha and
Assembly Constituencies is mandatory in representative
systems where single member constituencies are used for
E electing political representatives. The electoral districts are
dawn on the basis of the last published census figure that they
are relatively equal in population. Electoral districts that vary
significantly in population - a condition called malapportionment
- violate a central tenet of democracy that all the votes cast
F must be of equal weight. The last delimitation was in 1973
pursuant to the Delimitation Act, 1972. Since then there has
been increase of 87% in the population and most of the
constituencies across the country have become
malapportioned.
G
4. The Delimitation Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') is an Act
to provide for the readjustment of the allocation of seats in the
House of the People to the States, the total number of seats in
the Legislative Assembly of each State, the division of each
H State and each Union territory having a legislative Assembly
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 389
·-.1 '
~ COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

into territorial constituencies for election to the House of the A
,/
People and Legislative Assemblies of the States and Union
territories and for matters connected therewith. The Central
Government constituted the Delimitation Commission (for short
'the Commission') in exercise of its power under Section 3 of
"' '";~
the Act consisting of a retired judge of the Supreme Court as B
its Chairperson and other members. The Commission so set
up started functioning w.e.f. 4.7.2002.

5. In order to appreciate the nature of functions and duties
entrusted to the Commission it may be just and necessary to
notice the relevant provisions.
c
6. Section 8 deals with readjustment of number of seats.
It says:
~'
j
-I' "8. Readjustment of number of seats.-The Commission D
shall, having regard to the provisions of articles 81, 170,
'--·
330 and 332, and also, in relation to the Union territories,
except National Capital Territory of Delhi, sections 3 and
39 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20
of 1963) and in relation to the National Capital Territory of E
Delhi sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of article 239AA, by
order, determine,-

(a) on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at
_.J. the census held in the year 1971 and subject to the
provisions of section 4, the number of seats in the House F
of the People to be allocated to each State and determine
on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at the
census held in the year 1[2001] the number of seats, if any,
to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the
Scheduled Tribes of the State; and G

--; (b) on the basis of the census figures as ascertained at
the census held in the year 1971 and subject to the
provisions of section 4,, the total number of seats to be
assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State and
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.
!1

A determine on the basis of the census figures as
ascertained at the census held in the year 1[2001] the
number of seats, if any, to be reserved for the Scheduled
Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State:

.. B Provided that the total number of seats assigned to the 1.·
,.
Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (b) shall
be an integral multiple of the number of seats in the House
of the People allocated to that State under clause (a).

7. Section 9 deals with delimitation of constituencies which
c is as under:
"9. Delimitation of constituencies.-

(1) The Commission shall, in the manner herein provided,
<. . .
then, distribute the seats in the House of the People
D 't·
allocated to each State and the seats assigned to the
Legislative Assembly of each State as readjusted on the
basis of 1971 census to single-member territorial
constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the census
figures as ascertained, at the census held in the year
E 1991, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution,
the provisions of the Act specified in section 8 and the
following provisions, namely:-

(a) all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be
F geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them i.. .
regard shall be had to physical features, existing
boundaries of administrative units, facilities of

G
communication and public convenience;

(b) every assembly constituency shall be so delimited as
...
to fall wholly within one parliamentary constituency;

(c) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the ,_.,
Scheduled Castes shall be distributed in different parts of
the State and located, as far as practicable, in those areas
H where the proportion of their population to the total is
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW {ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 391
COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

comparatively large; and A

(d) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the
Scheduled Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be located
in areas where the proportion of their population to the total
is the largest. B
(2) The Commission shall-

(a) publish its proposals for the delimitation of
constituencies, together with the dissenting proposals, if
any, of any associate member who desires publication c
thereof, in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazettes
of all the States concerned and also in such other manner
as it thinks fit;
I
(b) specify a date on or after which the proposals shall be
0
further considered by it;
(c) consider all objections and suggestions which may have
·-. been received by it before the date so specified, and for
the purpose of such consideration, hold one or more public
sittings at such place or places in each State as it thinks E
fit; and

(d) thereafter by one or more orders determine-

(i) the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies; and
F
j
(ii) the delimitation of assembly constituencies of each
State.

... FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

8. In the State of Madhya Pradesh there are 29 G
Parliamentary Constituencies and 230 Assembly
Constituencies. Out of these 29 Parliamentary Constituencies
27 have 8 Assembly Constituencies each and 2 Parliamentary
Constituencies have 7 Assembly Constituencies each. In
pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, the H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A Commission vide its Notification dated 19.1.2007 published its
proposals for the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly
Constituencies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The
Commission invited objections and suggestions in regard to
its proposals to be submitted on or before 1.2.2007 after which
B date the proposals were to come up for further consideration
by the Commission. Under the said proposals Dhar
Parliamentary Constituency is shown consisting of 8 Assembly
Constituencies including 203-D.epalpur and the adjoining 26-
1ndore Parliamentary Constituency also had 8 Assembly
c Constituencies including 209-Mhow. The Commission upon
considering the objections and suggestions finally determined
the delimitation of both Dhar and Indore Parliamentary
Constituencies. ~n its final determination the Commission
included Mhow Assembly Constituency into Dhar Parliamentary
Constituency by deleting the same from Indore Parliamentary
0
Constituency as originally proposed. Consequently the
Depalpur Assembly Constituency has been deleted from Dhar
Parliamentary Constituency and added to Indore Parliamentary
Constituency. The present controversy centers around final
determination of the delimitation of Indore Parliamentary
E Constituency.

9. The main issue that arises for our consideration in the
present appeal is whether the Commission had complied with
the mandatory requirement as provided for in Section 9 (2) of
F the Act, insofar as it concerns the shifting of Mhow Assembly
Constituency from Indore Parliamentary Constituency and
including the same into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency.

10. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the Commission in its final
G determination decided to shift Mhow Assembly Constituency
from Indore Parliamentary Constituency and included the same
-
into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency without complying with the
mandatory requirements of Section 9 of the Act. The
submission was that there was no proposal by the Commission
H
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 393
COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

for shifting Mhow Assembly Constituency from Indore A
Parliamentary Constituency to Dhar Parliamentary Constituency
and on the other hand the Commission in its proposals clearly
indicated Mhow Assembly Constituency to be a part of Indore
Parliamentary Constituency for which there was no objection
whatsoever from any quarter. B

The Commission held a public hearing on 22.2.2007 at
Indore in which there was no suggestion that Mhow Assembly
Constituency should be shifted from Indore Parliamentary
Constituency to Dhar Parliamentary Constituency.
c
The Commission decided to interchange 203-Depalpur
and 209-Mhow Assembly Constituencies between 25-Dhar
(ST) and 26-lndore Parliamentary Constituencies.

11. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel for the D
respondents submitted that the decision of the Commission is
not ultra vires the provisions of the Act and the Guidelines and
Methodology of the Commission. The draft proposals of the
Commission for the delimitation of the constituencies vide its
Notification dated 14.5.2007 was for the whole of the State of E
Madhya Pradesh and not with reference to any one or more
Parliamentary Constituencies. The Commission only proposed
the names and extents of the constituencies which were subject
to change including addition and deletion of one or more
Assembly Constituencies in the light of suggestions/objections F
to be received from public and also in keeping with the
provisions of the Act and the Guidelines and Methodology of
the Commission. The decision of the Commission in including
203-Depalpur Assembly Constituency in 26-lndore
Parliamentary Constituency was due to vocal demand made in
the public meeting convened for further consideration of the G
proposals. As a consequence, to maintain equilibrium it
became necessary for the Commission to shift Mhow Assembly
Constituency for its addition to Dhar Parliamentary
-<
t Constituency on the grounds of contiguity and compactness.
' H
'1
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
•
A 12. The short question that arises for consideration is
whether Mhow Assembly Constituency could have been shifted
from Indore Parliamentary Constituency for its inclusion into
Dhar Parliamentary Constituency without there being any
proposal whatsoever.
~.
8
13. In the present case, one Uma Narayan Singh Patel and
others addressed a representation on 27 .1.2007 to the
Chairperson of the Commission raising number of objections
to the proposal to include Depalpur Assembly Constituency in
Dhar Par!iamentary Constituency and suggested for its inclusion
c into Indore Parliamentary Constituency. It would be useful to
refer in detail to the objections raised in this regard which are
as under:

(i) 80% of the villages of Depalpur Assembly
D Constituency are adjoining Indore city and the rest -1-
20% are comprised within Indore city;

(ii) 60% of the villages of Deepalpur Assembly
Constituency are only 2 to 40 kms. from Indore city;
E (iii) The transport for communication from the villages
of Deepalpur Assembly Constituency to Indore city
is good and available in abundance while no
transport for communication is available for Dhar
Parliamentary Constituency which is hundred
F kilometers away from this Assembly Constituency;
(iv) 30% of the villages of the Deeplapur Assembly
Constituency are under Indore Development
Authority and Municipal Corporation;
G (v) 40% of the villages of Deepalpur Assembly
Constituency which revenue oriented are under
..--
Indore Tehsil. Due to this, the Revenue Inspector
Circle will undergo a change including Hatod RIC.

H (Vi) 2% of Revenue boundar. of Deepalpur Assembly
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 395
COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
"f
Constituency touches Dhar Parliamentary A
Constituency while 70% boundary of Mhow
Assembly Constituency touches Dhar Parliamentary
Constituency and Dhar Revenue Department.

.. ~ 14. It was clearly suggested that Mhow Assembly
B
Constituency should be included in Dhar Parliamentary
Constituency in place of Depalpur Assembly Constituency. In
the public meeting held on 22.2.2007 at Indore, suggestions
were made to shift Depalpur Assembly Constituency to the
Indore Parliamentary Constituency from Dhar Parliamentary
Constituency. The Commission after considering the objections
c
and suggestions received by it, and having found merit in the
suggestions and representations for including Depalpur
Assembly Constituency in Indore Parliamentary Constituency
got published its final decision to shift Depalpur Assembly
~
Constituency from Dhar Parliamentary Constituency and made D
it to be a part of Indore Parliamentary Constituency and in the
process also shifted Mhow Assembly Constituency to Dhar
Parliamentary Constituency.

15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant E
was that there were no objections to the proposals of the
Commission in including Mhow Assembly Constituency as part
of Indore Parliamentary Constituency and in such a situation
there was no option to the Commission but to go ahead with
its proposals to include Mhow in Indore Parliamentary F
·"" Constituency.

16. Section 9 (1) of Act prescribes distribution of the seats
in the House of the People allocated to each State and the
seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each State as
readjusted on the basis of 1971 census to single-member G
territorial constituencies and delimit them on the basis of the
...-..\ census figures as ascertained, at the census held in the year
1991. Section itself provides the factors to be taken into
consideration including the provisions of the Constitution, the
provisions of the Act specified in Section 8 and the following H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
~
•
A provisions, namely:-

(a) all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be
geographically compact areas, and in delimiting
them regard shall be had to physical features,
existing boundaries of administrative units, facilities I~
B
of communication and public convenience;

(b) every assembly constituency shall be so delimited
as to fall wholly within one parliamentary
constituency;
c
(c) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the
Scheduled Castes shall be distributed in different
parts of the State and located, as far as practicable,
in those areas where the proportion of their
D population to the total is comparatively large; and

(d) constituencies in which seats are reserved for the
Scheduled Tribes shall, as far as practicable, be
located in areas where the proportion of their
population to the total is the largest.
E
17. Section 9(2) of the Act mandates the Commission to
follow the following steps before determining the delimitation
of any Constituency, namely:

(a) publish its proposal for the delimitation of the
F
constituency, along with dissenting proposals, if any;

(b) specify a date on which the proposals shall be
further considered by it;

G (c) consider all objections and suggestions which may
have been received by it before the date so
specified and for the purpose of such consideration
_,
hold one or more public sittings; and

(d) Only thereafter the Commission can dete·rmine the
H
=I
--1.
\ ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 397
COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
• />
delimitation of a Constituency. A

18. The most important aspect of the matter required to
be borne in mind is that the proposals for delimitation published
under Section 9 (2) of the Act are with regard to the whole of
.. -~
the State. The proposals are not a constituency-centric one.
Determining the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies
B
and Assembly Constituencies is a very complex and lengthy
process. Section 9 (1) of the Act mandates the Commission
as to what are the factors apart from the provisions of the
Constitution and provisions of the Act required to be taken into
consideration which are noticed herein above. Section 9 (2)
c
mandates the Commission to publish its proposals for the
delimitation of the constituencies in the manner provided
thereunder. It is true, determination of the delimitation of
Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies, as
_., the case may be, shall be only after consideration of all D
objections and suggestions which may have been received by
the Commission before the specified date for which purposes
the Commission may hold one or more public sittings at such
place or places in e-ach State as it thinks fit. The Commission
is not required to hold public meeting in each and every E
Parliamentary Constituency. What the Commission required is
to consider the objections and suggestions for its proposals
before determining the delimitation of the constituencies in the
entire State. The proposals cannot emanate from any
,
_A interested person. The distinction between the Commission's F
proposals and objections and suggestions in response to such
proposals is to be borne in mind. Every suggestion or objection
cannot uitimately result in any fresh proposal by the
: Cmnmission. The Commission is not under any legal or
Constitutional obligation to go on issuing any revised proposals G
depending upon every objection and suggestion as may be
received by it in response to its proposals. Since the exercise
-~
of the delimitation is not with reference to any particular
constituency, the suggestions or objections, as the case may
be, in respect of one constituency may have their impact at least H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
+•
A on one or more of the adjoining constituencies. In the present
case, various objections were lodged and suggestions were
made as to why Depalpur Assembly Constituency is to be
included in Indore Parliamentary Constituency in which the
Commission found merit and those suggestions do have a
B direct bearing on the delimitation of Indore Parliamentary
Constituency as well. The cascading effect cannot be avoided.
The Commission could not have retained Depalpur Assembly
Constituency and as well as Mhow Assembly Constituency in
Indore Parliamentary Constituency in which event Indore
c Parliamentary Constituency would have 9 Assembly
Constituencies while Dhar Parliamentary Constituency would
have only 7 Assembly Constituencies resulting in avoidable
malappropriation. The Commission's power to determine
delimitation of the constituency is not unlimited but is structured
D by the provisions of the Act and more particularly by Sections
8 and 9 of the Act apart from the Constitution (Eighty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 2001 and Constitution (Eighty~seventh
Amendment) Act, 2003 which have, inter alia, amended
Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India.
The effect of these amendments to the Constitution inter alia
E is that each Parliamentary Constituency in each State shall be
an integral multiple of the number of seats comprised therein
and no Assembly Constituency shall extend to more than one
Parliamentary Constituency. The Commission in the present
case appears to have determined the delimitation of both Dhar
F and Indore Parliamentary Constituencies in such a manner
whereby each of the Parliamentary Constituency shall consist
of equal number of 8 Assembly Constituencies. It appears the
Commission had also taken into consideration the contiguity,
geographical features, public convenience etc. before finally
G determining the delimitation of both the Parliamentary
Constituencies. We find no illegality to have been committed
by the Commission.

19. In the present case, the High court of Madhya Pradesh
H at Jabalpur summarily dismissed the writ petition under Article
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 399
COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
;~ .J
.· 226 of the Constitution praying for writ of certiorari for quashing A
the notification issued in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Act in respect of the delimitation of Indore
Parliamentary Constituency. The petition was rejected on the
short ground that the order of the Commission once published
.. .f
under Section 10(2) of the Act is law made under Article 327 B
of the Constitution and cannot be called in question in any court
by virtue of Article 329 of the Constitution.

20. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
only such decision of the Commission determining delimitation
of Constituencies after following the mandatory procedure c
under Section 9 (2) of the Act, if it is published, becomes a
force of law and it cannot be questioned in any court. Thus, the
protection under Section 10 (2) of the Act as well as Article
~
329(a) is available only when the mandatory requirements of
_.. Section 9(2) are complied with by the Commission. In support D
of the submission reliance was placed on the decision of this
Court in State of U.P. Vs. Pradhan Singh Khesttra Samiti [
1995 suppl. (2) sec 305.
21. The decision in Pradhan (supra) upon which reliance E
has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants in
no manner supports the contention urged before us. On the
other hand, this Court found the approach of the High Court to
be objectionable for it had gone into the question of validity of
the delimitation of the constituencies and also allotments of
F
seats to such constituencies although clause (a) of Article 243-
0 of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the
courts in electoral matters. In the said case, this court dealt with
the provisions of Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-0 and the
provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Section 9 of the
Delimitation Act, 1950. It was observed: G

----..; " What is more objectionable in the approach of the High
Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-0 of the
Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts
in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

~ ·"
A of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies
or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or
purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election
to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the
question of the validity of the delimitation of the
B constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them. We
f- ~
may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in
Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission 3 • In that
case, a notification of the Delimitation Commission
whereby a city which had been a general constituency was
notified as reserved for the Scheduled Castes. This was
c challenged on the ground that the petitioner had a right to
be a candidate for Parliament from the saitj constituency
which had been taken away. This Court held that the
impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation
of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
D constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution,
and that an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the
Delimitation Commission Act showed that the matters
therein dealt with were not subject to the scrutiny of any
court of law. There was a very good reason for such a
E provision because if the orders made under Sections 8
and 9 were not to be treated as final, the result would be
that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election
indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the
constituencies from court to court. Although an order under
F Section 8 or Section 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act
and published under Section 10(1) of that Act is not part
of an Act of Parliament, its effect is the same. Section
10(4) of that Act puts such an order in the same position
as a law made by Parliament itself which could only be
G made by it under Article 327. If we read Articles 243-C,
243-K and 243-0 in place of Article 327 and Sections
2(kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in place of Sections 8
y--
and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be obvious that
neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the
H constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 401
.,.. COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
I
seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor A
..,...,. the court could have entertained such challenge except on
the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were
invited and no hearing was given. Even this challenge could
not have been entertained after the notification for holding
' the elections was issued. The High Court not only B
-~ entertained the challenge but has also gone into the merits
of the alleged grievances although the challenge was
made after the notification for the election was issued on
31-8-1994."

22. It is true the observations made in this judgment "that
c
neither the delimitation of the Panchayat area nor the
constituencies in the said area and the allotments of seats to
the constituencies could have been challenged nor the court
~ could have entertained such challenge except on the ground
~ that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no D
hearing was given" may lend some support to the submission
made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there could
be a challenge in case where final determination of delimitation
of constituencies was made without inviting any objections
whatsoever. But that is not the ratio of the judgment. This court E
in Pardhan (supra) was not considering any similar issue as
the one that had arisen for our consideration in the present
case. This Court did not take any view that the proposals in
respect of each constituency shall have to be treated as an
_). independent proposal and the Commission's power to F
_,,
determine delimitation of the constituencies is with reference
to each constituency. The objections and/or suggestions, as the
case may be, are required to be taken into consideration

- treating the proposals as for whole of the State and delimitation
of the constituencies with reference to a State as a Unit.

23. In Meghraj Kothari Vs. Delimitation Commission &
G

---r Ors. [(1967) 1 SCR400], a Constitution Bench of this court while
interpreting Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Delimitation
Commission Act, 1962 which are in pari materia with the
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
~

A provisions of the present Act, observed:

"In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of
constituencies could only be entertained by the
Commission before the date specified. Once the orders
B
made by the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were
published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes \" -- ~

of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be
reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good
reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under
Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect
c would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an
election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the
constituencies from court to court. Section 10 (2) of the Act
clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that
the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section ~

D 10 (1) were to be treated as law which was not to be ~-

questioned in any court.

It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published _,..
under Section 10 (1) is not part of an Act of Parliament,
E but its effect is to be the same."

24. The Constitution Bench went to the extent of saying that
"an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act shows that the
matters therein dealt with were not to be subject to the scrutiny
of any court of law........... The provision of Section 10(4) puts
F orders under ss 8 and 9 as published under Section 10 (1) in i..__
.....
the same street as a law made by Parliament itself which .......
could only be done under Article 327, and consequently the

G
objection that the notification was not to be treated as law
cannot be given effect to".
CONCLUSION:
-
.,....,
25. In the present case, the Commission finally determined
the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of
Madhya Pradesh after considering all objections and
H
ASSN. OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. v. DELIMITATION 403
COMMN. OF INDIA & ORS. [B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

suggestions received by it before the specified date and got A
published its orders in the Gazette of India and in the Official
Gazette of the State as is required under Section 10 (1) of the
Act. The orders so published puts them "in the same street as
a law made by Parliament itself'. Consequently that Notification
is to be treated as law and required to be given effect to. B

26. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this
appeal. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed with no
order as to costs.

N.J. Appeal dismissed. C

,,
)