Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.45 seconds)Section 9 in The Delimitation Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Article 243 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 327 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 243O in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 243K in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Delimitation Act, 2002
The West Bengal Municipal Elections Act, 1994
Meghraj Kothari vs Delimitation Commission & Ors on 20 September, 1966
"45. What is more objectionable in the approach of the
High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-O of
the Constitution 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
243-K 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. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this
Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission [(1967)
1 SCR 400 : AIR 1967 SC 669] . 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 petitioner had a right to be a candidate for Parliament
from the said constituency which had been taken away.
This Court held that the impugned notification was a law
3
relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the
allotment of seats to such constituencies made under
Article 327 of the Constitution, and that an examination of
Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act
showed that the matters therein dealt with were not subject
to the scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very good
reason for such a provision because if the orders made
under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the
result would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold
up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of
the constituencies from court to court. Although an order
under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Delimitation
Commission Act and published under Section 10(1) of that
Act is not part of an Act of Parliament, its effect is the same.
Section 10(4) of that 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. If we read Articles
243-C, 243-K and 243-O in place of Article 327 and
Sections 2(kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in place of
Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be
obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area
nor of the constituencies in the said areas and the
allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been
challenged nor the court could have entertained such
challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation,
no objections were invited and no hearing was given. Even
this challenge could not have been entertained after the
notification for holding the elections was issued. The High
Court not only entertained the challenge but has also gone
into the merits of the alleged grievances although the
challenge was made after the notification for the election
was issued on 31-8-1994."
Sk. Maison & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 October, 2008
It appears from the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the election process would essentially include declaration
of seats and reservations thereof after limitation and delimitation.
Such view is also supported by a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Sk. Maison & Ors. - Vs. - The State of
West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2009 (1) CLJ (Cal) 33.