Supreme Court Orders Fresh Delimitation for Newly Formed Tamil Nadu Districts: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governors Secretariat (06 December 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 850

Judges: S. A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), B.R. Gavai J., Surya Kant J.

Can a State government proceed with local body elections in newly formed districts without conducting a fresh delimitation exercise? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the State of Tamil Nadu. The core issue revolved around the constitutional mandate for fair and representative local elections, particularly in light of the creation of new districts. The Court’s decision emphasized the necessity of adhering to constitutional principles to ensure that elections are conducted based on accurate population data and proper representation.

Case Background

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the principal opposition party in Tamil Nadu, filed a civil appeal challenging an order of the Madras High Court. DMK alleged that the ruling party, AIADMK, was deliberately postponing local elections, altering constituencies, and refusing to implement seat rotation to gain political advantage. They argued that Articles 243-D and 243-T of the Constitution mandated delimitation after every decadal census, with reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on a rotation basis.

The Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, which allowed local elections to be conducted based on the 2001 census, was challenged as unconstitutional. However, these issues became academic after the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Delimitation Commission Act, 2017, which led to a new delimitation exercise.

On 12th November 2019, the State Government issued a notification dividing four existing districts into nine new districts. This restructuring of districts and talukas led to the question of whether the already completed delimitation exercise was still valid. The State Government, however, stated that the local body elections would continue as per the Supreme Court’s order dated 17th July 2019, without considering the newly formed districts.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several key articles of the Constitution to underscore the importance of proper delimitation before conducting local body elections.

• Article 243-B: Mandates the constitution of Panchayats at the village, intermediate, and district levels in every state.
• Article 243-C: Requires the State, as far as practicable, to maintain a similar ratio between the population residing within the territory of a particular Panchayat and the number of seats allocated to it, across all Panchayats in the State.
• Article 243-D: Specifies that each Panchayat must be divided into territorial constituencies, and seats must be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in each Panchayat.

The Court emphasized that the constitutional objective of Part IX of the Constitution, which deals with Panchayats, cannot be achieved without a proper delimitation exercise. This exercise must comply with the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations, 2017, which should not contravene Article 243-C and Article 243-B(1) of the Constitution.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Submissions by the Appellant (DMK):
  • The DMK argued that the State Government’s decision to conduct elections based on the old district structure, despite the creation of nine new districts, was unconstitutional. They contended that a fresh delimitation exercise was necessary to ensure fair representation in the newly formed districts.
  • They emphasized that the division of districts and restructuring of talukas had altered the population dynamics and that the existing delimitation was no longer valid for the newly formed districts.
  • The DMK sought a direction to compel the respondents to first carry out delimitation, reservation, and rotation processes before notifying or conducting any Panchayat elections.
• Submissions by the Respondents (State Government and Election Commission):
  • The State contended that the election process was already underway and that the elections should be conducted as per the schedule announced by the State Election Commission.
  • They argued that the Supreme Court’s previous order dated 17th July 2019, allowed them to proceed with the election process.
  • The State argued that the present proceedings amounted to “calling in question an election” and were thus not maintainable under Articles 243-O and 243-ZG of the Constitution.

The DMK argued that the State Government was deliberately delaying elections and altering constituencies to gain political advantage, which was a violation of constitutional principles. The State, on the other hand, relied on the Supreme Court’s previous order to justify their actions and argued that the court should not interfere with the ongoing election process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

• Whether the State Government could proceed with local body elections in the newly constituted nine districts without conducting a fresh delimitation exercise, given the constitutional mandate for fair and representative elections.

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:

• Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Others [2000 (8) SCC 216] (Supreme Court of India):

  The Court relied on this case to clarify that judicial intervention is permissible in election matters if it facilitates the completion of the election process and does not amount to “calling in question an election.” The Court quoted the following from this judgment:
  
  “(2)  Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.
  (3)Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body been shown to have acted in breach of law.
  (4)Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court.”

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the applications in part and disposed of them with the following directions:

1. Elections for Panchayats at all levels (village, intermediate, and district) should be held in all districts except the following nine newly reconstituted districts:
   • Kancheepuram
   • Chengalpattu
   • Vellore
   • Thirupathur
   • Ranipet
   • Villupuram
   • Kallakurichi
   • Tirunelveli
   • Tenkasi
2. The respondents, including the Delimitation Commission, were directed to delimit the nine newly constituted districts according to the law and hold elections for their Panchayats within four months.
3. There is no legal impediment to hold elections for Panchayats at all levels for the rest of the districts.
4. The State Election Commission shall notify elections for the Panchayats at all levels in all districts except the nine reconstituted districts.
5. While conducting elections, the respondents should provide proportionate reservation at all levels as per Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the constitutional mandate for fair and representative local body elections. The Court emphasized that the creation of new districts fundamentally altered the demographic landscape, necessitating a fresh delimitation exercise to ensure that each Panchayat had a similar ratio between its population and the number of seats allocated to it. This was crucial to ensure proper representation and reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The Court also noted that the State Government’s reliance on a previous order of the Supreme Court was misplaced, as that order itself mandated the completion of “all legal formalities” before the notification of elections. The Court clarified that a proper delimitation exercise was a necessary legal formality that could not be bypassed.

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the legal considerations and the constitutional provisions related to local body elections. While the factual aspects of the case, such as the creation of new districts and the State Government’s actions, were important, the legal framework and the need to uphold constitutional principles played a more significant role in the Court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s judgment are:

• Fresh Delimitation is Mandatory: The creation of new districts necessitates a fresh delimitation exercise to ensure fair representation and compliance with constitutional mandates.
• Constitutional Mandate: Local body elections must adhere to the constitutional provisions outlined in Part IX of the Constitution, particularly Articles 243-B, 243-C, and 243-D.
• Judicial Intervention: Courts can intervene in election matters to ensure the smooth and fair conduct of elections, especially when there is a need to correct or smoothen the process.
• Proportionate Reservation: While conducting elections, the respondents should provide proportionate reservation at all levels as per Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995.

This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving the creation of new administrative units and the conduct of local body elections. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional principles to ensure that elections are fair, representative, and based on accurate demographic data.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following specific directions:

1. The Respondent-authorities shall hold elections to all Panchayats at village, intermediate, and district levels, except those in the nine newly reconstituted districts.
2. The Respondents (including the Delimitation Commission) are directed to delimit the nine newly-constituted districts in accordance with law and thereafter hold elections for their panchayats within a period of four months.
3. There shall be no legal impediment against holding elections for Panchayats at the village, intermediate, and district levels for the rest of the districts.
4. State Election Commission shall notify elections for the panchayats at village, intermediate, and district levels in respect of all districts except the nine re-constituted districts.
5. While conducting elections, the respondents shall provide proportionate reservation at all levels, in accordance with Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the creation of new districts necessitates a fresh delimitation exercise before local body elections can be conducted in those districts. This judgment clarifies that the constitutional mandate for fair representation and reservation of seats cannot be circumvented by relying on an outdated delimitation exercise.

This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and ensures that local body elections are conducted based on accurate demographic data. It also clarifies that judicial intervention is permissible to ensure the smooth and fair conduct of elections.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governors Secretariat and Ors. underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates for fair and representative local body elections. The Court’s decision to order a fresh delimitation exercise for the newly formed districts in Tamil Nadu ensures that elections are conducted based on accurate demographic data and that the principles of proportionate representation and reservation are upheld. The judgment sets a significant precedent for future cases involving the creation of new administrative units and the conduct of local body elections.