TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court of India has clarified an important legal principle regarding the orders of the Delimitation Commission, emphasizing that these orders are not beyond judicial scrutiny.
EXPLANATION:
- This landmark decision allows for the constitutional courts to review the validity of the Delimitation Commission’s decisions, provided they are found to be arbitrary or contrary to the values enshrined in the Constitution.
Judicial Review and Constitutional Safeguards
- The Supreme Court underscored the importance of judicial review as a safeguard against potential overreach or misuse of power by the Delimitation Commission.
- It ruled that while courts must exercise caution and respect the established principles limiting their review powers in delimitation matters, they are not entirely barred from intervening.
- If an order issued by the Delimitation Commission is manifestly arbitrary or irreconcilable with constitutional principles, the courts are empowered to grant appropriate remedies to rectify the situation.
The Role of Judicial Review in Protecting Citizen Rights
- The court highlighted a critical concern: without the possibility of judicial intervention, citizens would be left without a forum to address grievances against the delimitation process.
- Such a scenario would place undue power in the hands of the Delimitation Commission, potentially leaving citizens vulnerable to unjust decisions.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed its role as a constitutional court and guardian of public interest, emphasizing that permitting unchecked power would contradict the principles of separation of powers and the Court’s duties.
Case Background: The Gujarat High Court Petition
- The case that prompted this ruling originated from a petition filed before the Gujarat High Court.
- The petitioner challenged the delimitation exercise, which resulted in the reservation of the Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency in Gujarat for the Scheduled Caste community.
- The Delimitation Commission had carried out this reservation under the powers granted by the Delimitation Act, 2002.
- The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition, citing Article 329(a) of the Constitution, which restricts judicial interference in electoral matters.
- The High Court reasoned that since the Delimitation Commission’s order had received the President of India’s assent, it could not be questioned in any court of law.
Supreme Court’s Rejection of the High Court’s Reasoning
- The Supreme Court bench disagreed with the Gujarat High Court’s interpretation.
- They clarified that the High Court’s view, which treated the Delimitation Commission’s orders as entirely immune from judicial review, was incorrect.
- While acknowledging that Article 329 does limit judicial scrutiny regarding the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats, the Supreme Court stated that this limitation does not apply to every aspect of the delimitation process.
Reference to Precedents: DMK vs. State of Tamil Nadu
- In its judgment, the Supreme Court referenced a previous case, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), where the Court interpreted Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution.
- These articles, which mirror Article 329, were argued to place a complete bar on judicial intervention.
- However, the Court in the DMK case rejected this argument, affirming that constitutional courts could intervene, especially in cases involving mala fide or arbitrary exercises of power.
- This precedent, along with its subsequent approval in the three-judge bench judgment in State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh (2021), bolstered the Supreme Court’s decision to permit judicial review of the Delimitation Commission’s orders.
Distinction from Meghraj Kothari Case
- The Supreme Court also addressed the respondent’s reliance on the constitutional bench judgment in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission (1966) to argue that there is a complete bar on judicial review in delimitation matters.
- The Court clarified that the Meghraj Kothari judgment restricted judicial intervention to avoid unnecessary delays in the election process.
- However, this does not imply an absolute bar on judicial review.
- The Court emphasized that constitutional courts could undertake judicial review within a limited scope at an appropriate stage.
Delimitation Commission
- The Delimitation Commission Act was established in 1952 and allowed the Union government to set up a Delimitation Commission as needed.
- The Union government sets up Delimitation Commission after every Census, as per the provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act and the Constitution of India (Articles 82 and 170).
- The Delimitation Commission in India is appointed by the President of India and works in collaboration with the Election Commission of India.
- The Commission is composed of a retired Supreme Court judge, the Chief Election Commissioner, and the respective State Election Commissioners.
- Its functions include determining the number and boundaries of constituencies to make the population of all constituencies nearly equal and identifying seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where their population is relatively large.
- In case of a difference of opinion, the opinion of the majority prevails and the Commission’s orders have the force of law and cannot be challenged in court.
How is Delimitation done?
- According to Article 82 of the Constitution, Parliament enacts a Delimitation Act after Census that is held every 10 years.
- The Union government then constitutes a Delimitation Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
- The Commission examines population data, existing constituencies, the number of seats to be analyzed, holds meetings with all the stakeholders and submits its recommendation to the government.
- The draft report of the Delimitation Commission is published in the Gazette of India, the official gazettes of the states concerned and at least two vernacular publications seeking feedback from the general public.