Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer When State Reorganisation Is Already Done, Section 103 Of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Cannot Undo It: Supreme Court Rules Sugarcane Societies Are Not Multi-State Bodies Bihar Cannot Take Over A Century-Old Library By Paying One Rupee As Compensation: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2015 Act Call Records Without Section 65-B Certificate Are Inadmissible, Oral Evidence Of Nodal Officer No Substitute: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Minority Shareholders Cannot Block Capital Reduction By Majority: Supreme Court Upholds Bharti Telecom's Buyout Of 1.09% Individual Investors At Rs.196.80 Per Share Travel Bans On Unvaccinated, No Disclosure Of Deaths Abroad: Supreme Court Finds COVID Vaccine Programme Violated Articles 14, 19 And 21 Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Rs. 38.67 Lakh Pension Account Case Cheque Dishonour Due To ‘Account Blocked’ Cannot Attract Section 138 NI Act When Drawer Had No Control Over Frozen Account: Karnataka High Court Mere Domestic Discord Or Harassment Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Cannot Rescue Police Officer From Removal: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Despite Criminal Court's Not Guilty Verdict Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action State Cannot Shrug Responsibility For Vaccine Deaths: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For COVID-19 Adverse Events Supreme Court Streamlines Procedural Safeguards For Passive Euthanasia

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