Supreme Court clarifies judicial review scope in delimitation matters: Kishorchandra vs. Union of India (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2024. Citation: 2024 INSC 579. Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. Can the High Court refuse to review orders of the Delimitation Commission? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the reservation of a legislative assembly constituency. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in dismissing a writ petition challenging the delimitation exercise, citing a bar on judicial interference in electoral matters. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the extent to which courts can review the orders of the Delimitation Commission. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The appellant, Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod, filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court challenging the delimitation exercise that resulted in the reservation of the Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency for the Scheduled Caste community. This reservation was made by the Delimitation Commission under the Delimitation Act, 2002. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing Article 329 of the Constitution, which bars court interference in electoral matters.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition at the threshold, relying on Article 329(a) of the Constitution, which it interpreted as barring any court from questioning the validity of laws relating to the delimitation of constituencies. The High Court did not delve into the factual disputes or merits of the appellant’s claim, as it deemed the matter outside the purview of judicial review. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in question is Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India, 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.”

This provision restricts the power of courts to interfere in matters related to the delimitation of constituencies. Additionally, the Delimitation Act, 2002, empowers the Delimitation Commission to carry out the delimitation exercise.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in holding that the Delimitation Commission’s order is completely beyond judicial review. The appellant contended that while Article 329 restricts interference, it does not completely bar judicial scrutiny, especially when the order is manifestly arbitrary or violates constitutional values. The appellant sought a review of the delimitation exercise, which resulted in the reservation of the Bardoli constituency.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that Article 329 imposes a complete bar on judicial review in matters of delimitation. They relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission and others, arguing that the courts should not interfere in such matters to avoid delaying the election process. They argued that the High Court’s decision was correct and should be upheld.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding 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.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court’s view that there is a complete bar on challenging the order of delimitation of constituencies. The Court clarified that while Article 329 restricts judicial scrutiny, it does not eliminate it entirely. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts can intervene in cases of manifest arbitrariness or violation of constitutional values.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters with the necessity to ensure that the Delimitation Commission’s actions are not arbitrary or in violation of constitutional values. The Court emphasized its role as a constitutional court and guardian of public interest, which requires it to intervene when necessary to protect citizens’ rights.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretations and principles rather than factual aspects of the case.

The Court reasoned that while Article 329 restricts judicial scrutiny, it does not completely bar it. The Court emphasized that if judicial intervention is completely barred, citizens would have no recourse against arbitrary actions by the Delimitation Commission. The Court highlighted its duty as a constitutional court and guardian of public interest to ensure that such actions are subject to judicial review when necessary.

The Court distinguished the case of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission and others, clarifying that the restriction on judicial intervention in that case was to avoid delaying elections, and not to establish a complete bar on judicial review. The Court also relied on its previous decisions in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N. and State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, which affirmed that constitutional courts can intervene in delimitation matters to facilitate elections or when there is mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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.”

“A constitutional court can undertake the exercise of judicial review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that Article 329 of the Constitution does not impose a complete bar on judicial review in matters of delimitation of constituencies.
• Constitutional courts can intervene in cases of manifest arbitrariness or violation of constitutional values in delimitation exercises.
• The High Court’s view that the order of delimitation is entirely insusceptible to judicial review was set aside.
• Citizens have a right to seek judicial review when actions of the Delimitation Commission are arbitrary or violate constitutional principles.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant to approach the High Court again, keeping in view the subsequent events, if so advised. However, the Court did not interfere with the delimitation exercise undertaken in 2006.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while Article 329 of the Constitution restricts judicial interference in electoral matters, it does not impose a complete bar on judicial review, particularly in cases of manifest arbitrariness or violation of constitutional values. This clarifies the scope of judicial review in delimitation matters and ensures that citizens have a forum to address grievances related to arbitrary actions by the Delimitation Commission. This case reaffirms the principles laid down in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N. and State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, and clarifies the interpretation of Meghraj Kothari vs. Delimitation Commission and others.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India clarifies that while Article 329 of the Constitution restricts judicial interference in electoral matters, it does not impose a complete bar on judicial review. The Court emphasized that constitutional courts can intervene in cases of manifest arbitrariness or violation of constitutional values. This decision ensures that citizens have a forum to address grievances related to arbitrary actions by the Delimitation Commission, balancing the need for judicial restraint with the protection of fundamental rights.