Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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