MEGHRAJ KOTHARI versus DELIMITATION COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 20-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MEGHRAJ KOTHARI 
A 
I'. 
DELIMITATION COMMISSION & ORS. 
September 20, 
1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., M. HIDAYATIJLLAH, S. M. SIKRI, J.M. 
B 
SHELAT AND G. K. MITTF.R, JJ.) 
Constitwion of India, 1950, Arts. 82, 327, 328 and 329-0rder under 
s. 9 of tlze Delimitation Cpmmission Act, 1962-publi.rlud under s. 10(1) 
-Whether Jaw under Art. 321-'fherefore '*'herher can be questioned in a 
court or whether Arr. 329 app/ie•. 
Delin1ltation Comn1ission Act, 1962, ss. 8, 9 and 10---Scope of. 
By a notificalion of 1he Delimitation Commission dated July 24, 1964 
iJsued in 1erms of s. 10(1) of the Delimilation Commission Ac~ 1962, 
Ujja.in City, which had been a general constituency, was notified as reserved 
for the Schecluled Castes. 
The appeBant who was a resident of Ujjain and a citizen of India, 11led 
a petition under Art. 226 praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the 
noli&cation on the ground that be had a right to be candidate for parlia-
ment from the Ujjatn Oty constituency which had been ta"-en away. The 
petition was rejected by the High Court on the short ground that the noti-
fica1ion could not be questioned in any court because under Art. 329(a) of 
the Constitution the V3lidity of any law reJ.ating 
to 
ihe delimitation of 
coo!ltituencies or the allotment of sealc; lo such constituencies, made or 
purporting to bo made un<ler Art. 327 or Art. 328, could not be. called in 
question in any court. 
In appeal to thi• Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that the impugned no1ifica1ion, which was an order under s. 9 and pub-
lished in accordance with the provisions of s. 10(1) of the Act, was not 
a law within the meaning of s. 329; that in any event under s. 10(2) such 
an order was to have the force of law but was not il'lielf a law; and that 
the notification \.\'as not mado under Art. 327 but Art. 82 of the Constitu-
tion. 
HELD : dismissing the appeal, 
l'he impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation of 
constituencies or the allotment of scats to such constituencies made under 
Art. 327 of the Constitution. 
An examination of ss. 8 and 9 of the Act showed that the maUers 
th&rein dealt with were not to be subject ID tho scrutiny of any court of. 
law. 
Section 10(2)· clearly demonstrates the intention of the legislature 
that the orde..,; under ss. 8 and 9 published under s. 10(1) wore to be 
treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court. There was 
very good reason behind such a provision. 
If the orders made under ss. 8 
and 9 were not ID be treated as final, the result would be that any voter, 
if he so wished, could hold up an election indefiriitely by questioning the 
delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. [410 B.C, G, HJ 
Although an order under s. 8 or s. 9 published under s. 10(1) is not 
part of an~ of Parliamen~ its effect is ID be the same. Section 10(4) 
~ 
such an order in the same position as a law made by the Parliament 
ttself which could only be made by it under Art. 327. [415 El 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MEGHKAJ v. DELIMITATION COMM. (Mitter, /.) 
401 
Case law referred to. 
Article 82 merely envisages that upon the completion of each cemua 
lhe l)llocation of seats in the House of the People and the division of each 
State into territorial constituencies may have to be readjusted. It is Art. 
327 which enjoins upon Parliament to make provision by law from time 
to time with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with elec-
tions to either House of Parliament, delimitation of constituencies and Ill 
olher matters necessary for securing the due constitution. of such House 
or Houses. [406 CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 84Jof 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated· 
February 25, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Co.urt in Misc. 
petition No. 72 of 1965. 
G. N. Dikshit, K. L. More and R. N. Dixit, for the appellant. 
Niren De, Addi. Solicitor-General, R. Ganapathy Iyer and 
R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos. 1-4. 
S. S. Shukla, for respondent No. 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment 
and order dated February 25, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 72 of 1965. 1he 
High Court summarily dismissed the petition under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing a 
notification issued in pu

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