Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Upholds Delimitation Exercise in Assam, Notices Constitutional Challenge

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the ongoing delimitation exercise in the State of Assam. The judgment came in response to Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 51/2023 filed by petitioner Hiren Gohain against Union of India & others, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act 1950.

The court took cognizance of the petitioner’s arguments, which included concerns over the political inclusivity of the delimitation process. The petitioner contended that the Election Commission’s involvement in the delimitation exercise, as per Section 8A, dilutes the role of political representatives in the process, violating cardinal principles of democracy.

In response to the petitioner’s claims, the Supreme Court issued a notice on the constitutional challenge and directed counter-affidavits to be filed within three weeks, followed by rejoinders within two weeks. The court has reserved the constitutional challenge for further deliberation.

Addressing the process of rescission of the deferment order, the court noted that the President, through a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, allowed the readjustment of Assam’s constituencies in accordance with the Delimitation Act 2002. However, the petitioner argued that the Election Commission’s actions were not in line with the terms of the rescission.

The court also examined the constitutional norms outlined in Article 170(2) and Article 81(2) of the Constitution, which stipulate that each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies with a ratio between population and seats. The petitioner alleged that the draft proposal published by the Election Commission did not adhere to these constitutional norms.

While the constitutional challenge remains under consideration, the court declined to interdict the ongoing delimitation process. The Election Commission had commenced the process following the rescission of the deferment order, and the court deemed it inappropriate to halt the process at this stage.

The case is now listed for further hearings in the first week of October 2023. This landmark judgment has implications for the delimitation exercise in Assam and highlights the balance between political representation and administrative mechanisms in the delimitation process.

Date.24.july.2023

HIRENDRANATH GOHAIN   vs  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Latest Legal News