LexELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus MOHD. ABDUL GHANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
A
v.
MOHD. ABDUL GHAN! AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 1, 1995
[.l.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, J.J.]
B
Election Law :
Representation of the People Act. 1950: S.9 ( l){b) : Delimitation Act,
1972: S. I I ( l)(b) : Delimitation of Parliament01y and Assembly Constituen-
C
cies Order. 1976 : Constitution of India : A1ticle 82, third proviso :
Election Conunission-Power to 1naintain Deliniitation Order up to
date-Held, the power is subject to rest1ictio11 that in updating Delimitation
Order occasioned by an alteration of boundaries or name of any distiict or
any tenito1ia/ division, no change is to be niade in the bounda1ies or areas D
or e:ttent of any constituency as shown in Delbnitation Order
Certain villages falling in the territorial division of District Mur-
shidabad, were included in territorial division of District Maida for ad-
ministrative purpose as a result of geographical changes brought about in E
the area by River Ganges on changing its course. However, for election
purposes these villages continued to form part of 8-Jangipur Parliamen-
tary Constituency in accordance with the Delimitation of Parliamentary
and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976 on the basis of previous census
held in 1971. In 1984, residents of these villages filed a writ petition before
the High Court claiming that the villages having become part of Maida F
District, should also form part of Maida Parliamentary Constituency.
They prayed for a writ of mandamus to issue to the Election Commission
to effect such a change by virtue of S.9 (l)(b) of the Representation of the
people Act, ·19so. The High Court allowed the prayer and also granted a
Certificate under Article 132 of the Constitution for appeal to this Court. G
Accordingly, the Election Commission filed the appeal.
On the question : whether the geographical change resulting in the
villages becoming part of District Maida when earlier they formed part of
District Murshidabad required those villages to be included in Maida
Pareliamentary Constituency instead of Jangipur Parliamentary Con-
H
633
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4S.C.R.
A
stituency as shown in the Delimitation Order, 1976,
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Keeping in view the third proviso to Article 82 of the
Constitution and the entire scheme of the Representation of the People
B
Act, 1950 and the Delimitation Act, 1972, the nature of power conferred on
the Election Commission under S.9 (l)(b) of the R.P. Act and under S.
11 (l)(h) of 1972 Act is merely to update the Delimitation Order by making
necessary changes on account of subselJUent events and to correct the
description in the Delimitation Order which has become inappropriate.
c 'fhis power cannot extend to alteration of the boundaries or area or extent
of any constituency as shown in the Delimitation Order. [642-G]
1.2. Both the provisions, i.e., S.9 (l)(b) of the R.P. Act, 1950 and
S.ll(l)(b) of the Delimitation Act, 1972 provide that where there is any
alteration in the boundaries or in the name of any district on any ter·
D ritorial division n1entioned in the order, such amendments which have
become necessary to update the Delimitation order, should be made. Rut,
the additional words in S.ll(l)(b) of the Delimitdtion Act, i.e., "So, how-
ever, that the boundaries or areas or extent of any constituency shall not
be changed by any such notification" leave no doubt that the power to
E
F
G
maintain Delimitation Orders up-to-date conferred on the Election Com-
mission is subject to the restriction that in updating the Delimitation
Orders occasioned by an alteration of the boundaries or name of any
district or any territorial division it does not make any change in the
boundaries or areas or extent of any constituency as shown in the Delimita-
tion Order. [641-C, 642-F]
1.3. The exercise required to be performed by the Election Commis-
sion as a result of any alteration in the boundaries or name of any district
•
or any territorial division ntentioned in the l)elimitation Order has to be
n1ade only by changing the description of that are~ which has undergone
a geographical change to correctly describe that part of the constituency,
the boundaries·, area and extent of the constituencies remaining the same,
i.e., unaltered. Thus, there is a specific restriction against any alteration
or change in the boundaries or area or extent of any constituent.:y asExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.