Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

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