1966 (9) TMI 150 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Interpretation of Article 329(a) of the Constitution concerning the notification.
3. Whether the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, was enacted under Article 327 or Article 82 of the Constitution.
4. Legal effect of the orders issued under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962.
5. Whether the notification issued under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, constitutes "law" under Article 327 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh summarily dismissed the petition under Article 226, which sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notification issued under Section 10(1) of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962. The High Court's dismissal was based on Article 329(a) of the Constitution, which states that the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called into question in any court. The Supreme Court upheld this dismissal, emphasizing that once the orders made by the Delimitation Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were published, they could no longer be challenged in a court of law.

2. Interpretation of Article 329(a) of the Constitution concerning the notification:
Article 329(a) of the Constitution was pivotal in this case. It bars the jurisdiction of courts to question the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made under Article 327 or Article 328. The Supreme Court clarified that the orders issued under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act, once published, have the force of law and are thus protected under Article 329(a). This interpretation reinforces the finality and non-justiciability of delimitation orders once they are published.

3. Whether the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, was enacted under Article 327 or Article 82 of the Constitution:
The appellant contended that the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, was enacted under Article 82 and not Article 327, and thus, its orders could be questioned in court. The Supreme Court refuted this argument, stating that Article 82 merely envisages the necessity of readjustment upon the completion of each census, while Article 327 empowers Parliament to make provisions for all matters relating to elections, including delimitation. The preamble and provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, indicate that it was enacted under Article 327, thereby making its orders immune from judicial scrutiny under Article 329(a).

4. Legal effect of the orders issued under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962:
Sections 8 and 9 of the Act mandate the Delimitation Commission to determine the allocation of seats and the delimitation of constituencies based on the latest census figures. Section 10(2) stipulates that upon publication in the Gazette of India, these orders shall have the force of law and shall not be called into question in any court. The Supreme Court emphasized that these orders, once published, supersede previous provisions and are to be treated as binding law. This ensures the finality and stability of the delimitation process.

5. Whether the notification issued under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, constitutes "law" under Article 327 of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the notification was not a law but merely had the force of law. The Supreme Court, however, held that the orders issued under Sections 8 and 9, once published, are to be treated as law made under Article 327. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to provide finality to the delimitation process and prevent indefinite challenges that could disrupt electoral schedules. The Court referenced several precedents, including Canadian and Indian cases, to illustrate the distinction between administrative orders and laws with statutory force.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. It affirmed that the notification issued under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, constitutes law under Article 327 and is thus protected from judicial scrutiny by Article 329(a). The judgment underscores the importance of finality in the delimitation process to ensure the smooth conduct of elections.