J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 09-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 506 
J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 9599 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 09, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Election laws: 
c 
Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 
1957 - s. 3 -
Constitution of delimitation Commission -
Postponement of delimitation of territorial constituencies of the 
State pertaining to the Legislative Assembly until publishing 
of the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 
0 
2026 - Sustainability of - Held: Right to cast vote is a 
valuable right but to demand any uniform value of one's voting 
right through the process of delimitation, disregarding the 
statutory and constitutional dispensation based on historical 
reasons is not a justiciable right -
There is an express 
E constitutional bar to any challenge being made to delimitation 
law - Amendment to the Constitution of J & K is not violative 
of the basic structure of the Constitution - Constitution of 
Jammu and Kashmir, 1957 - ss. 47(3) and 142- Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Articles 327 and 329A. 
F 
Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation 
of the People Act, 1957 was amended. It sought to defer 
the delimitation exercise until publishing of the relevant 
figures for the first census taken after the year 2026. A 
corresponding amendment was also made in sub-
G section 3 of Section 47 of the Constitution of Jammu and 
Kashmir, 1957. The appellants challenged the 
postponement of the delimitation of the constituencies till 
2026 as a result of the said amendment. The High Court 
held that delimitation for the purpose of dividing the State 
H 
506 
J & K NATIONAL PANTHERS PARTY v. UNION OF 
507 
INDIA AND ORS. 
into single member territorial constituency may be a 
A 
Basic Feature of democracy contemplated in the 
Constitution, however, the re-adjustment of the extent 
and boundaries of such territorial constituency upon 
completion of each census was neither a mandate of the 
Constitution, nor the essence of democracy as per the 
B 
Basic Structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A right to cast vote is a valuable right but 
to demand any uniform value of one's voting right c 
through the process of delimitation, disregarding the 
statutory and constitutional dispensation based on 
historical reasons is not a justiciable right. [Para 25] [518-
A-B] 
1.2 Article 327 of the Constitution of India, 1950, 
D 
empowers Parliament to make a law relating to 
delimitation of constituencies. The mandate of Article 
329A is that any law relating to the delimitation of 
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such 
constituencies would not be called in question in any 
E 
court. Identical provisions have been made in Section 
142 of the Constitution of J & K. Therefore, there is an 
express constitutional bar to any challenge being made 
to the delimitation law which is made under 
Constitutional provisions. The substantial challenge of 
F 
the appellant in the said proceeding is not to be 
entertained by any court, including this Court. [Para 26 
& 27] [519-B-G] 
1.3 The submission that the amendment to Section 
47(3) of the Constitution of J & K violates the basic 
G 
structure of the Constitution, is not based on a sound 
principle and is rejected. There must be a clear perception 
of what the Basic Structure is. It is hazardous to define 
what is the Basic Structure of the Constitution as what 
is basic does not remain static for all time to come. 'Free 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A and fair election' is one of the basic features. Ensuring 
uniformity in the value of votes is not a constitutionally 
mandated imperative of free and fair election under the 
constitutional dispensation. [Paras 27, 29, 30, 31) [518-G; 
519-D; 520-G-H; 521-A] 
B 
c 
D 
R. C. Poudyal and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. 
(1994) Supp 1 SCC 324 - followed. 
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. 
State of Kera/a and Anr. (1973) 4 sec 225 - referred to. 
Charles W. Baker vs. Joe C. Carr 369 US 186; 8. A. 
Reynolds etc. vs. M. 0. Sims - 377 US 533 - referred to. 
Shorter Constitution of India by D.D. Basu 14th Edn -
referred to. 
369 us 186 
377 us 533 
Case Law Reference: 
Referred to 
Para 15 
Referred to 
Para 18 
E 
(1994) Supp 1 SCC 324 Followed 
Para 25, 31 
(1973) 4 SCC 225 
Referred to 
Para 28 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App

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