Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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.   

 

Latest Legal News