ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. versus THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 31-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 384 
A 
ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENT OF MHOW (ROM) & ANR. 
B 
v. 
THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2009) 
MARCH 31, 2009 
[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. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
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 
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 
0 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.