RATANLAL NATH ETC. versus STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 25-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
RATANLAL NATH ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 25, 1997 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 243(f)-Definition of popula-
tion--Population means the population as ascertained at the last preceeding 
census of which relevant figures have been published. 
A 
B 
c 
Election Laws : Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993/Tripura Panchayats 
(Delimitation of Constituencies) Rules 1993--Sections 2(32), 176, 177, 183, 
228---R.ules 3(3) Proviso (ii), 6(4) Proviso (ii); 8(4)(c) Proviso (iiT-Deter-
mination of numbers ofSC!ST members to be elected on the basis of any 
other authenticated recor~When census figures not available for any area of 
Gram Panchayat/Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parisha~Held : Not inconsistent D 
with definition of polulation in Section 2(32) of the Act and Aiticle 243(f) of 
the Constitution of India. 
Tripura Panchayat (Preparation of Electoral Rolls) Rules. 1993-Rule 
8-A sub mies (3) to (7)-Adoption of electoral rolls assembly constituency E 
for Gram Panchayat/Panchayat Samity/Zila Parisha~Held : Not inconsis-
tent with Sections 176, 177, 183 of the Tripura Panchayats Act-Rule made 
pursuant to these sections to carry out the purpose of the Act to hold "General 
Elections" are peif ectly valid and effective. 
Tripura Panchayats (Constitution of State Panchayat Election Com-
F 
mission) Rules, 1993--Rule 3(3)-Limiting the tenure of $tale Election Com-
missioner to a period of six 
months-And also providing for his 
reappointment for another tenn-Held: Does not diminish the independence 
of the office-Can not be challenged on the ground of such limitation of 
tenure/when there was no allegation that elections were not properly con- G 
ducted due to such limitation of tenure. 
A writ petition was filed by a voter from the State of Tripura, in the 
High Court challenging the validity of certain rules framed by the State in 
P'!rsuance of Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993; He challenged Rule 8-A, 
sub-rules (3) to (7) of the Tripura Panchayats (Prepration of Electoral H 
475 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A Rolls), Rules, 1993) on the ground that these rules are inconsistent with 
sections 176, 178 and 183 of the Act. He also challenged proviso (ii) to 
sub-rue (3) of Rule 3, Proviso (ii) to sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 and proviso (ii) 
to clause (c) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 8 of the Tripura Panchayats (Delimita-
tion of constituencies) Rules, 1993 alleging that these rules travel beyond 
B the Act and therefore are invalid. Another .challenge of the writ petitioner 
was against Rule 3 of Tripura Panchayats _(Constitution of State 
Panchliyat Election Commission) ·Rules, 1993 on the ground that the 
Constitution of India and the Act contemplate the State Panchayat Elec-
tion Commissioner to be an independent authority, not subject to control 
of the State, limiting his tenure to a period not exceeding six months and 
C at the same time providing for reappointment diminishes its inde-
pendence. The High Court partly allowed his writ petition and struck down 
the rules as prayed for except Rule 3 of Tripura Panchayats (Constitution 
of State Panchayat Election Commission) Rules, 1993. Being aggrieved, the 
petitioner filed appeal before this Court praying for striking down of the 
D said rule. The State also filed appeal against the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal of the State and dismissing the appeal of the 
Writ Petitioner-appellant, this Court 
HELD : 1. Provisos (i) and (ii) to Rule 3(3) of the Tripura 
E Panchayats (Delimitation of Constituencies) Rules, 1993 do not say that 
·even where the census figures are available, the authorities should go to 
other record. The provisos really provides for a situation where census 
figures are not available. The Rules are inspired by the objective that the 
elections have to be held and it is with the objective that the State has made 
p 
the said provision. The said provisos can not be held to travel outside the 
purview of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993. The rules are made for 
carrying out the purpose of the enactment (Section 228(1) of the Act) and 
the purpose of the Act is to ensure the conduct of the elections. Indeed, 
part IX of the Constitutions was amended in 1973 to ensure periodic and 
G 
regular elections to Panchayats, which were not bing held regularly in 
many States. Not only the said provisos are not inconsistent with the 
provisions of the Act and the Constitution, but
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.