New Delhi, February 13The Supreme Court on Monday notifications for the delimitation of Assembly Constituencies for the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) claiming that they are without jurisdiction
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka also said that it has not ruled upon the validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Re-organisation Act, 2019 which is pending before the top court in the batch of petitions challenging abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, Bar and Bench reported.
“We have dismissed the petitions. We have given the rider that the issue of the Reorganisation Act is pending before this Court and we have not said anything on the merits of the same,” the Court said.
The bench had on December 1 reserved judgment in the plea challenging the notifications for the delimitation of assembly constituencies in the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), after hearing counsel for two days.
The judgment was delivered in a petition filed by two Srinagar residents, Haji Abdul Gani Khan and Dr Mohammad Ayub Mattoo, challenging the increase in the number of seats from 107 to 114 in the UT claiming that the same was ultra vires Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Indian Constitution and Section 63 of the Jammu & Kashmir Re-organisation Act, 2019.
It was contended that the respondents had no power to establish a Delimitation Commission under Section 3 of the Delimitation Act since only the Election Commission could carry out the process of delimitation after the notification of the Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Delimitation Order, 2008.
The plea also pointed out that Article 170 of the Constitution provides the next delimitation to be taken up after 2026, however, the Union Territory of J&K was singled out.
Kashmir has always been a part of India: Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Ravi Shankar Jandhyala appearing for the petitioners had submitted that increasing the number of seats was in violation of the constitutional amendment which froze any delimitation exercises till 2026.
He had also pointed out that four northeastern States were excluded from the exercise, which was a violation of Article 14 (right to equality before the law).
Justice Oka had repeatedly posed the question as to why the present plea, filed under Article 32, had not challenged the validity of provisos of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act that allowed for delimitation.
Section 62(2) of the said Act provides for re-adjustment of constituencies in the Union Territory by a Delimitation Commission.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the respondents, had argued that Reorganisation Acts have been used in the past to increase the number of MLAs.
The SG had argued that the legislative intent of the Reorganisation Act was to take care of temporary exigencies and peculiar circumstances, and that is why the commission conducted the first delimitation exercise, and the ECI can follow.
Besides Senior Counsel Jandhyala, advocates Sriram Parakkat and MS Vishnu Shankar represented the petitioners.
SG Tushar Mehta and advocate Kanu Agrawal represented the respondents.
