Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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