KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHODversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

          [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1124 : 2024 INSC 579

          Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod
                           v.
                 Union of India & Ors.
                (Civil Appeal No. 7930 of 2024)
                           23 July 2024
           [Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]

                     Issue for Consideration
Whether exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act,
2002 are insusceptible to powers of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

                            Headnotes†
Constitutional law – Limitations on judicial scrutiny on electoral
matters under Article 329 of the Constitution of India and
scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India over exercise of power under the Delimitation Act:
Held: Although Article 329 of the Constitution of India undeniably
restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of any
law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to
such constituencies, it cannot be construed to have been 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 – As a constitutional court and guardian
of public interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary
to the Court’s duties and principle of separation of powers –
Reliance placed on the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (Dmk) v. Secretary Governors Secretariat and
Ors. [2019] 14 SCR 704 : (2020) 6 SCC 548 : 2019 INSC 1326
and State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [2021] 2 SCR 770 :
(2021) 8 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 179, where this Hon’ble Court
held that a Constitutional Court can intervene for facilitation of
elections, or where a case of malafide or arbitrary exercise of
power is made out. [Paras 5 and 6]
Constitutional Law – Nothing precludes a Constitutional
Court from deciding validity of orders passed by Delimitation
Commission:
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                              1125

      Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India & Ors.


     Held: While Courts shall always be guided by settled principles
     of scope, ambit and limitation 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 – A Constitutional Court can undertake the exercise of
     judicial review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage.
     [Paras 8 and 9]

                              Case Law Cited
     Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Dmk) v. Secretary Governors
     Secretariat and Ors. [2019] 14 SCR 704 : (2020) 6 SCC 548;
     State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [2021] 2 SCR 770 : (2021)
     8 SCC 401 – relied on.
     Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors. [1967] 1 SCR
     400 : 1966 SCC OnLine SC 12 : 1966 INSC 171 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India, 1950; Delimitation Act, 2002.

                              List of Keywords
     Scope of judicial interference under Delimitation Act; Judicial review
     of electoral matters.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7930 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2012 of the High Court
     of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 10136 of 2012
                         Appearances for Parties
     Mrs. Christi Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Puneet Jain, Mann Arora, Ms.
     Akriti Jain, Harsh Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
     K M Natraj, A.S.G., Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Bani
     Dikshit, Kartikay Aggarwal, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav,
     Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Chitvan Sinhal,
     Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sidhant Kumar, Sahil Tagotra, Ms. Manyaa
     Chandok, Sujay Jain, Advs. for the Respondents.
1126                                                       [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order
1.   Leave granted.
2.   The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.09.2012,
     passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in terms
     whereof the Writ Petition, filed by the appellant, challenging the
     delimitation exercise, which resulted into reservation of Bardoli
     Legislative Assembly Constituency, Gujarat for Scheduled Caste
     community was dismissed. The said constituency was reserved by
     the Delimitation Commission in exercise of its powers under the
     Delimitation Act, 2002.
3.   The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, relied upon Article 329
     of the Constitution and held that there is a bar to interference by the
     Court in electorate matters and as such, the appellant’s challenge
     to the Delimitation Commission’s Order No. 33, dated 12.12.2006,
     which had received the assent of the President of India, could not
     be called in question in any court of law. In this manner, the High
     Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold on the anvil of
     Article 329(a) of the Constitution, which states:
          “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.”
4.   As regards to the factual dispute and/or merits of the appellant’s
     claim is concerned, we do not deem it necessary to go into the
     validity of Commission’s order as the controversy pertains to the
     delimitation exercise, which was undertaken way back in the year
     2006. It is not in dispute that much water has flown under the bridge
     since then, including the undertaking of a fresh delimitation exercise
     by the competent authority.
5.   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
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1127

       Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India & Ors.


      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.
      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.
6.    This understanding is supported by a three-judge bench decision of
      this Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N.1 where
      the Court was called upon to interpret Articles 243O and 243ZG
      of the Constitution, which mirror the aforementioned Article 329.
      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. Using this, the Court
      directed delimitation to be conducted for nine new districts. Recently,
      a three-judge bench of this Court in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz
      Shaikh,2 affirmed the ratio of the above-cited decision while discussing
      principles on Article 329(a), and rejected the contention which sought
      to prove it as per incuriam.
7.    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.
8.    In order to prove that any kind of judicial intervention is fully prohibited,
      the respondents relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of this
      Court in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission and others3
      A closer examination of the aforementioned case, however, would
      show that the Court in that case restricted judicial intervention when


1    [2019] 14 SCR 704 : (2020) 6 SCC 548, para 14
2    [2021] 2 SCR 770 : (2021) 8 SCC 401, para 67
3    [1967] 1 SCR 400 : 1966 SCC Online SC 12
1128                                                               [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


     the same would unnecessarily delay the election process. This is
     writ large from the following paragraph, where the Court explicated
     the reason behind adopting the hands-off approach:
              “20. 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 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 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 10(1) were to be treated
              as law which was not to be questioned in any court.”
                                                        [emphasis supplied]
9.   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.
10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part, and para 3 of the
    impugned judgment—to the extent it held that there is a bar to
    challenge the order of delimitation of constituencies is set aside.
    The appellant, if so advised, may approach the High Court keeping
    in view the subsequent events. However, at present, no ground
    has been made out to interfere with the exercise of delimitation of
    constituencies and consequential reservation thereof, which was
    undertaken in the year 2006.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)