High CourtDivision Bench2007-08-07Disposed of; not disturbing the 2007 elections;...

ANAND SINGH KUNWAR AND ORS. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI & ORS.

Case / Petition Number:Transferred Case No. 20 of 2004

Neutral Citation:[2007] 8 S.C.R.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-08-07
Court Decision / Holding: Transferred Case No. 20 of 2004 disposed of. The Court held that although the Election Commission’s delimitation involved an error, it would not disturb the 2007 elections on this ground. Importantly, it emphasized that Article 332(3) must guide future delimitation and that ST representation should be limited to two seats, aligning with the constitutional mandate. The case is disposed of with directions that future vacancies for ST seats be treated as two, ensuring conformity with the constitutional provision.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; not disturbing the 2007 elections; future ST seats to be two.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anand Singh Kunwar and others

Respondents

Election Commission of India through Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
State of Uttarakhand
Delimitation Commission

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Mahendra Anand
• H.S. Parihar
• Kuldeep S. Parihar

Counsels for Respondents

• Mohan Parasaran
• A. D. N. Rao
• A.S.G.
• P. Panneswaran
• Shreekant N. Terdal
• D.S. Mahra
• Meenakshi Arora
• Mehendiratta
• Surajyoti Gupta

Case Synopsis & Summary

Anand Singh Kunwar and others approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction challenging the delimitation of the Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) Legislative Assembly constituencies and the consequent reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes (ST). The Election Commission had issued a delimitation order under the Delimitation Act, 2002 read with Section 22(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, fixed seventy single-member constituencies and reserved three seats for STs. The petitioners argued that, under Article 332(3) of the Constitution, reservations must be in proportion to the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, and with ST population around 3% in Uttaranchal against 70 seats, the nearestWhole-number representation should be two seats (2.1 rounded down to 2). Thus, reserving three seats exceeded the constitutional mandate. The Election Commission countered that the 3-seat reservation was a bona fide mistake and later corrected by reducing ST seats to two; it also contended that delimitation involved special considerations for tribal areas near international borders and public demand for greater representation. The Court, noting the supremacy of Article 332(3), held that increasing ST representation to three was not warranted by the Constitution and that the mandate must be confined to population proportion. Though the 2007 elections had already occurred, the Court disposed of the transferred case and directed future ST vacancies to be treated as two seats; elections would not be disturbed on this ground.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 332(3)Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, Section 22(5)Delimitation Act, 2002Constitution of India, 1950, Article 170(3)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Reservation must be made in proportion to the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Article 332(3))
The mandate of the Constitution is supreme and the Election Commission has no scope to go beyond the Constitution
Paramount consideration in delimitation is population proportion; other considerations are subordinate to constitutional mandate

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that reservation must be in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the State as per Article 332(3). With ST population ~3% in Uttaranchal and 70 total seats, the reserved fraction (2.1) points to two seats, not three. They argued that three ST seats were beyond the constitutional mandate and that delimitation should reflect population proportion, regardless of administrative convenience or border considerations.

Contentions of Respondents

The Election Commission argued the 3-seat reservation was a bona fide mistake corrected later by reducing to two seats. They relied on the delimitation order dated 5.11.2000 and subsequent 28.12.2006, highlighting special development needs of tribal areas near international borders and demands from Associate Members and the public for greater tribal representation; they maintained that political and developmental considerations could influence delimitation within permissible constitutional space.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ANAND SINGH KUNWAR AND ORS. v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI & ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A _--{_ ;. \ # ANAND SINGH KUNWAR AND ORS. v. # ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, THROUGH CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI& ORS. AUGUST 7, 2007 [A.K. MATHURANDMARKANDEY KATJU,JJ.] _ConstitUtion of India, 1950:_ _Article 332(3)-Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and_ C _Scheduled Tribes in Stqte Legislative Assemblies-Held: Article 332(3) mandates that reservation must be made in proposition io the population of Scheduled Tribes of-the State-This should be the paramount consideration of the Election Commission and not any other consideration-The mandate oftheConstitution is supreme and the Election Commission has no scope to_ D _go beyond the constitution._ _Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000:·_ _s.22(5)-Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies in State of Uttaranchal-Election Commission of India Notification No. 282/UIT/2001-_ E _DEL dated 5.11.2001-Number of seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes raised to 3 in place of 2-Writ petition challenging the increase on the ground that keeping in view the proportion of population of Scheduled Tribes in the State, there should be 2 seats and not 3-Allowed by High Court-Appeal by Election Commission of India_ - _Meanwhile realizing its mistake Election Commission reduced the number of seats to 2-Held: Consideration for_ F _increasing the seats of Scheduled Tribes from 2 to 3 was not at all warranted as it is in violation of Article 332(3) of the ConstitutiOn of India-It is hoped that when any Notification is issued, Election Commission shall confine itself_ . _to the mandate of the provisions of the Constitution and will not be swayed by any other consideration-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 332(3)._ G CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Transfered Case No. 20 of 2004. Mahendra Anand, H.S. Parihar, Kuldeep S. Parihar for the Petitioners in T.C. No. 20, 2004. 909 H 910 [2007] 8 S.C.R. "' SUPREME COURT REPORTS A Mohan Parasaran, A.D.N. Rao, A.S.G., P. Panneswaran, Shreekant N. Terdal, D.S. Mahra, Meenakshi Arora, Mehendiratta, Surajyoti Gupta for the Respondents. \.- ANAND SINGH KUNWARv. ELECTION COMMN. OF INDIA. THROUGH CHIEFELECTION COMMNR .. NEW DELHI 911 Scheduled Tribes in the State ofUttaranchal. The Election Commission passed h. an order in continuance to this Notification under Sub-Section 5 of Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 in respect of the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in the State of Uttaranchal and by that order the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttaranchal was fixed at seventy by the Election Commission and the Election Commission has B determined the number of seats to the reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of Uttaranchal as twelve (12) and three (3) respectively. That means, three (3) seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes which is the subject matter of dispute in the present cases. 3. The main contention of the petitioner in this petition is that as per C the census data the population of the Scheduled Tribes is 3% of the total population of Uttaranchal and as per the delimitation of State of Uttaranchal, seventy (70) single member territorial assembly constituencies were created in the State of Uttaranchal. In reference to Article 332 (3) of the Constitution of India the number of seats as far as possible is to the extent of 3% of the seventy (70) seats of the State of Uttaranchal. That comes to 2.1 which is D nearer to two (2) seats than to three (3) seats, but the Election Commission has fixed three (3) seats for Scheduled Tribes which is beyond the provisio11s of the Constitution. 4. A Counter Affidavit was filed by the Election Commission and they have tried to justify it alleging that this was a _bonafide_ mistake and they have E rectified the same now and they reduced the seats of Scheduled Tribes from three (3) to two (2). Para 3 of their Counter Affidavit reads as under:- "(iii) In the delimitation order dated 28.12.2006 of the Delimitation Commission under the Delimitation Act, 2002 published in the Official F Gazette, only 2 seats, namely, Chakrata in District Dehradun and Nanak Matta in District Udhamsingh Nagar have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Uttarakhand and Dharchula in District Pithoragh, the bone of contention in the present petition, has been declared as a general Constituency seat, which will take effect from such date as the President of India may by order specify under G Article 170(3) of the Constitution. (iv) the order of delimitation dated 5.11.2000 was passed by the Election Commission keeping in view the special requirements of the development of tribal areas, particularly in the areas adjoining international border with the two neighbouring countries and the H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. ~~ A aspirations of the local people to be part of the mainstream in the democratic process. Further, there was also a strong de~and for the increase for representation of tribals from the Associate Members and from the public." 5. Though now the issue is purely academic because the Election B Commission having realised its mistake has reduced the number of seats of Scheduled Tribes from three (3) to two (2) and the Notification to this effect has already been issued but in order to justify the order dated 5th November, 2001 the Election Commission has made certain observations which need not be repeated again. It should be made clear that the mandate of Article 332 (3) C of the Constitution of India should always be kept in mind. Article 332 (3) mandated that the reservation must be made in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the State. This should be the paramount consideration of the Election Commission and not any other consideration. We need not make any observation but the consideration for increasing the seats of Scheduled Tribes from two (2) to three (3) was not at D all warranted as it is in violation of Article 332 (3) of the Constitution oflndia. The mandate of the Constitution is supreme and the Election Commission has no scope to go beyond the Constitution. Therefore, we hope and trust that when any Notification is issued, the Election Commission shall confine itself to the mandate of the provisions of th~ Constitution of India and will not be swayed by any other consideration. E ~ r. ' >- > 6. Now that the 2007 elections have already taken place we are not disturbing the elections on this ground but in future Scheduled Tribes vacancy should be treated as two only. F RP. 7. The Transferred case No 20 is accordingly disposed of. Transfered case disposed of. _!_