LexKISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHOD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1124 : 2024 INSC 579 Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7930 of 2024) 23 July 2024 [Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002 are insusceptible to powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitutional law – Limitations on judicial scrutiny on electoral matters under Article 329 of the Constitution of India and scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over exercise of power under the Delimitation Act: Held: Although Article 329 of the Constitution of India undeniably restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seats to such constituencies, it cannot be construed to have been imposed for every action of delimitation exercise – 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 – As a constitutional court and guardian of public interest, permitting such a scenario would be contrary to the Court’s duties and principle of separation of powers – Reliance placed on the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Dmk) v. Secretary Governors Secretariat and Ors. [2019] 14 SCR 704 : (2020) 6 SCC 548 : 2019 INSC 1326 and State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [2021] 2 SCR 770 : (2021) 8 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 179, where this Hon’ble Court held that a Constitutional Court can intervene for facilitation of elections, or where a case of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out. [Paras 5 and 6] Constitutional Law – Nothing precludes a Constitutional Court from deciding validity of orders passed by Delimitation Commission: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1125 Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India & Ors. Held: While Courts shall always be guided by settled principles of scope, ambit and limitation on the exercise of judicial review in delimitation matters, there is nothing that precludes them to check the validity of orders passed by Delimitation Commission on the touchstone of the Constitution – 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 – A Constitutional Court can undertake the exercise of judicial review within the limited sphere at an appropriate stage. [Paras 8 and 9] Case Law Cited Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Dmk) v. Secretary Governors Secretariat and Ors. [2019] 14 SCR 704 : (2020) 6 SCC 548; State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [2021] 2 SCR 770 : (2021) 8 SCC 401 – relied on. Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission & Ors. [1967] 1 SCR 400 : 1966 SCC OnLine SC 12 : 1966 INSC 171 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India, 1950; Delimitation Act, 2002. List of Keywords Scope of judicial interference under Delimitation Act; Judicial review of electoral matters. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7930 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2012 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 10136 of 2012 Appearances for Parties Mrs. Christi Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Puneet Jain, Mann Arora, Ms. Akriti Jain, Harsh Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. K M Natraj, A.S.G., Kanu Agarwal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Bani Dikshit, Kartikay Aggarwal, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Chitvan Sinhal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sidhant Kumar, Sahil Tagotra, Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Sujay Jain, Advs. for the Respondents. 1126 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.09.2012, passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in terms whereof the Writ Petition, filed by the appellant, challenging the delimitation exercise, which resulted into reservation of Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency, Gujarat for Scheduled Caste community was dismissed. The said constituency was reserved by the Delimitation Commission in exercise of its powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002. 3. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, relied upon Article 329 of the Constitution and held that there is a bar to interference
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.