UP Land Revenue Act | Map Correction Cannot Be Done By Mechanically Transferring Land To Compensate Deficiency Of Adjoining Plot: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction In Injunction Suit Between Private Parties Not Barred If Title Or Vesting In Panchayat Not In Issue: P&H High Court District Consumer Commission Duty-Bound To Refer Product For Laboratory Analysis When Prayed For; Cannot Dismiss For Want Of Expert Evidence: Punjab State Commission Section 135(3) BNSS | Executive Magistrate Cannot Demand Interim Bond Without Commencing Inquiry; Must Supply Kalandara Material & Follow Madhu Limaye Safeguards: Delhi High Court In Neha Bora Sections 126 & 130 BNSS | Writ Court Cannot Evaluate Sufficiency Of Material At Show-Cause Stage Unless There Is 'Nil Material': Delhi High Court Section 32 Evidence Act | Multiple Dying Declarations Cannot Be Discarded Over Minor Variations If Core Substratum Imputing Fatal Blow Remains Consistent: Allahabad High Court Multiple FIRs Arising From Identical Financial Scheme Can Be Clubbed And Transferred To First FIR Court: Bombay High Court POCSO | Mandating Injury Report Indicating Penetrative Assault For Victim Compensation Violates Article 14, Frustrates Sec 164-A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Section 308 IPC | Premeditation & Requisite Intention Must Be Proved; Single Blow With Stone In Sudden Fight Attracts Section 325 IPC: Delhi High Court Organizing A Book Fair Is A Private Activity And Not A 'Public Function' Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Calcutta High Court Prior Permission From Education Officer Before Issuing Recruitment Advertisement Is Mandatory, Not An Empty Formality: Bombay High Court Order 41 Rule 5 CPC | Tenant Facing Eviction Decree Liable To Pay Mesne Profits At Market Rate Till Delivery Of Possession: Himachal Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In Matrimonial Disputes | Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Cannot Be Treated As Automatic Grounds For Custodial Interrogation: Delhi High Court Section 35 BNSS | Notice For Appearance Under Section 35(3) Is Not A Mandatory Precondition For Arrest Under Section 104 Of The Customs Act: Gujarat High Court Section 58 BNSS | 24-Hour Cap Is An Outer Limit, Not A Licence To Detain Accused Until Morning Court Hours: Kerala High Court Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Chain, Last-Seen Theory Fails Without Proximity To Time Of Death: Karnataka High Court Service Law | Procedural Violation In Domestic Inquiry Not Fatal Unless Delinquent Proves Real Prejudice: Bombay High Court Indian Succession Act | Unequal Disposition Or Exclusion Of Legal Heir Does Not Invalidate Will If Due Execution Proved: Madras High Court Civil Services Rules | Seniority Counts From Initial Appointment If Normal Probation Completed Without Extension; Minor Penalty Cannot Depress Rank: High Court Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 31 DV Act Cannot Be Denied If Accused Had No Notice Of Protection Order: Kerala High Court Section 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Inapplicable To Search Of Bag Carried By Accused: Himachal Pradesh High Court Railway Rolling Stock Transfers to IRFC Must Be Classified to Determine Sales Tax Liability Under Delhi Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court No Contributory Negligence Can Be Attributed To Pillion Rider In Road Accident: Karnataka High Court Nasha Mukti Center Cannot Detain Adult Based Merely On Spouse's Consent Without Medical Mandate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab Land Revenue Act | Revenue Officer Must Strictly Adhere To Approved Mode Of Partition Verbatim: Punjab & Haryana High Court Labour Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Employer For Non-Production Of Employment Records: P&H High Court Closure Of Evidence | Past Conduct Prior To Deposition Irrelevant For Deciding Plea To Adduce Further Evidence: Orissa High Court Supreme Court's Mandate In 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' On Supplying Written Grounds Of Arrest Applies Prospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allegations Of Forceful Sexual Intercourse Raised After 14 Years Of Marriage Without Complaints Cannot Constitute Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act: Telangana High Court Punjab Municipal Act | Municipality Alleging Unauthorised Construction Must Prove Violation By Cogent Evidence, Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Sec 49 Notice: P&H High Court Arbitration Act | Limitation To Challenge Award Commences From Date Certified Copy Is Obtained If Signed Copy Not Delivered Under Section 31(5): Madhya Pradesh High Court Pension Regulations | Voluntary Retirement Weightage Cannot Be Claimed By Employees Retired Prematurely Under Regulation 19(1): Telangana High Court Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely Due To Marital Status; Judicial Declaration Operates Retrospectively: Allahabad High Court Transfer Of Female Employees With Infants | Administrative Exigency Must Yield To Constitutional Right Of Motherhood And Child Welfare: Rajasthan High Court Consumer Protection Act | Summary Jurisdiction Cannot Resolve Complex Factual Disputes Requiring Detailed Evidence & Cross-Examination: Punjab State Consumer Commission

Supreme Court Upholds Delimitation Exercise in Assam, Notices Constitutional Challenge

07 May 2024 2:49 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