DELIMITATION OF CONSTITUENCIES

Delimitation of Constituencies and Electoral Rolls

Power of delimitation of constituencies vests in Delimitation Commission whereas preparation of electoral roll vests in
the Election Commission. Where no fresh order of delimitation was issued by the Delimitation Commission, the Election
Commission has no power to change the roll for the constituency. A person whose name is found in the electoral roll is
an eligible voter. The territorial constituency in which he can vote depends upon the arrangement of the electoral roll.
Inclusion of an area which is not legally includable and preparation of electoral roll for this area would be invalid

Challenging the provisions of the Delimitation Act

The provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act cannot be made a subject matter of challenge in an election petition or under
Section 8 of the Representation of the Peoples 1950 [Ram Lal v. Vishweshwar Nath, AIR 1968 Raj. 249 .]

It was the intention of the legislature that every order under Sections 8 and 9 of Delimitation Act, 2002, after publication is to have the
force of law and not to be made the subject matter of controversy in any Court. The Parliament by enacting Section 10(2) of the
Delimitation Act, 2002 wanted to make it clear that orders passed under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 were to be
treated as having the binding force of law and not mere administrative directions. This is further reinforced by Section 10(4) of the
Delimitation Act, 2002 according to which the re-adjustment of representation of the several territorial constituencies in the House of
the People and the delimitation of those constituencies provided for in any such order was to apply in relation to every election to the
House held after the publication of the order in the Gazette of India and these provisions contained in the order were to supersede all
provisions relating to such representation and delimitation contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the
Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order
In R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1804
Article 170(2) of the Constitution of India while dealing with the issue of reservation of 12 seats for Sikkimese of Bhutia-
Lepcha origin in the State of Sikkim. One of the main question which was raised in that case was ‘whether Section 7(1A)
and Section 25A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Section 5A (2) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 providing for reservation of 12 seats, out of 32 seats in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly in favour of Bhutias-Lepchas,
are unconstitutional as violative of the basic features of democracy and republicanism under the Indian Constitution’. It
was held that there is nothing un-constitutional. Section 7(1-A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is not
violative of basic features of democracy. The differential treatment for reserving seats in State Assembly for Sikkimese of
‘Bhutias-Lepchas’ origin was held to be justified. This was on the ground of historical considerations

It was held that it is true that the right to vote is central to the right of participation in the democratic process. However,
there is less consensus amongst theorists on the propriety of judicial activism in the voting area. In India, the Delimitation
Laws made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, are immune from the judicial test of their validity and the process
of allotment of seats and constituencies is not liable to be called in question in any court by virtue of Article 329(a) of the
Constitution. It was held in R.C. Poudyal case (supra) that ‘a perfectly arithmetical equality of value of votes is not a
constitutionally mandated imperative of democracy and, secondly, that even if the impugned provisions make a departure
from tolerance limits and the constitutionally permissible latitudes, the discriminations arising are justifiable on the basis of
the historical considerations peculiar to and characteristic of the evolution of Sikkim’s political institutions’. The same was
held to be true of the evolution of the political institutions of Jammu and Kashmir. The provision in the Constitution
indicating proportionality of representation is necessarily a broad, general and logical principle but not intended to be
expressed with arithmetical precision. The principle of mathematical proportionality of representation is not a declared
basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India.
Legal effect of orders under Section 10 (2) and 10(4) of the Delimitation Act of 2002

The legal effect of the orders is given in Sections 10(2) and 10(4) of the Delimitation Act. Under Sub-section (2), ‘upon
publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any
Court’. Under sub-section (4), the re-adjustment of representation of several territorial constituencies in the House of
the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State and the delimitation of those constituencies provided for in any such
order shall apply in relation to every election to the House or to the Assembly, as the case may be, held after the
publication in the Gazette of India of that order and shall so apply in supersession of the provisions relating to such
representation and delimitation contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Delimitation of
Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order

Amendment to the order of Delimitation Commission.

The Election Commission is not barred in effecting an amendment to the order of Delimitation Commission so long as
the limit of the constituencies remains the same
Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission SC 1966

In that case, a notification of the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had been a general constituency
was notified as reserved for the Scheduled Castes. This was challenged on the ground that the aggrieved person
had a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the said constituency which had been taken away. The Court held
that the impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats
to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution of India, and that an examination of Sections 8
and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act, indicated that the matters therein dealt with were not subject to the
scrutiny of any court of law. Section 10(4) of the Delimitation Act puts such an order in the same position as a law
made by Parliament itself which could only be made by it under Article 327 of Constitution India

State of U.P. v. Pradhan Singh Keshttra Samiti 1995 Supp (2) SCC 305.

The Supreme Court of India dealt with the provisions of Articles 243C, 243K and 243O Constitution of India of and
the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Clause (a) of Article 243O of the Constitution of India enacts a bar on the
interference by the courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made
under Article 243K of Constitution of India and the election to any Panchayat, the High Court has gone into the
question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them
Not bound to accept all proposals.

The Government is not bound to accept all proposals, for dividing into wards but has only to take the
recommendations of the municipality into consideration. Where the municipality after submitting proposal sends
subsequent proposal in modification of earlier proposal it is not necessary for the Government to accept them.28
Where the Delimitation Commission decides to change the original proposals it is not required to again publish the
proposal and invite objections
[Association of Residents of Mhow v. Delimitation Commission of India, AIR 2008 MP 236 [LNIND 2008 MP 329]:
2009 (1) MPHT 425 : (2009) 2 MPLJ 308.]
Reservation for Scheduled Tribes.

Anand Singh Kunwar v. Election Commission of India through Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2007
SC 2866
The contention was that as per the census data the population of the Scheduled Tribes was 3% of the total
population of Uttaranchal and as per the delimitation of State of Uttaranchal, seventy single member territorial
assembly constituencies were created in the State of Uttaranchal. In reference to Article 332(3) of the Constitution
of India the number of seats as far as possible is to the extent of 3% of the seventy seats of the State of Uttaranchal.
That came to 2.1 which was nearer to two seats than to three seats, but the Election Commission had fixed three
seats for Scheduled Tribes which was beyond the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Election Commission
stated that it was a bona fide mistake and it rectified the same and reduced the seats of Scheduled Tribes from
three to two.

Reservation and nomination of seats for weaker sections, policy of State.

Reservation and nomination of seats for weaker sections is a matter which falls within the policy of the State. This
subject including delimitation of constituencies, reservations of seats for women and members belonging to the
weaker section are matters which would fall within the domain of policy matters.45 Where reservation is made for
backward class citizens and the election is for the office of Chairperson then a writ petition would not be
maintainable in view of the bar created under Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India
Reservation for Scheduled Tribes.

Anand Singh Kunwar v. Election Commission of India through Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2007
SC 2866

Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India mandates that the reservation must be made in proportion to the
population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the State. Though the issue became purely academic
because the Election Commission having realised its mistake had reduced the number of seats of Scheduled Tribes
from three to two and the Notification to this effect had already been issued but in order to justify it, it was made
clear that the mandate of Article 332(3) of the Constitution of India should always be kept in mind. Article 332(3)
mandates that the reservation must be made in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes of the State. This should be the paramount consideration of the Election Commission and not any
other consideration. The mandate of the Constitution is supreme and the Election Commission has no scope to go
beyond the Constitution