Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Supreme Court upholds legality of delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


"There is nothing illegal about the exercise of delimitation/readjustment of the constituencies undertaken by the Delimitation Commission for the purposes of dividing the Union Territory into 90 constituencies on the basis of the 2011 census figures.", Supreme Court.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the legality of the delimitation exercise conducted in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, affirms the constitutional validity of the delimitation process and dismisses challenges to the appointment of the Delimitation Commission.

Quoting the judgment, the headline reads: "Nothing illegal about the exercise of delimitation/readjustment of constituencies undertaken by the Delimitation Commission."

The court addressed various key issues related to the delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir. It affirmed that the increase in the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly from 107 to 114, as mandated by the J&K Reorganisation Act, was not in violation of the Constitution. The court clarified that the delimitation process was necessary to give effect to the increase in seats, and the exclusion of 24 seats from Pakistan occupied areas was a valid action.

 Regarding the legality of the appointment of the Delimitation Commission, the court found that the notification issued on 6th March 2020 was within the scope of the Delimitation Act, 2002. It stated, "There is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020."

The court also addressed the exclusion of certain North-Eastern states from the delimitation exercise, stating that their different circumstances and provisions in the J&K Reorganisation Act justified their exclusion. It held that the provision in the Act, which substituted the year 2001 with 2011 for delimitation based on census figures, did not violate any constitutional provisions.

 The judgment further highlighted that the draft order of delimitation was already issued and the final order was published, which the petitioners did not challenge. The court emphasized that the orders passed by the Delimitation Commission have the force of law and cannot be questioned in any court.

The Supreme Court's decision affirms the legality of the delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir, bringing clarity and closure to the contentious issue. The judgment has far-reaching implications for the representation and electoral process in the Union Territory, ensuring fair and effective political representation for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Date of Decision: February 13, 2023

Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr.  vs Union of India & Ors.   

 

Similar News