IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2047 _____OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19497 of 2008)

Association of Resident of Mhow (ROM) & Anr.  …Appellants  

Versus

The Delimitation Commission of  India & Ors.         …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

Leave granted.  

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment

and  order  of  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh  at

Jabalpur  dismissing  the W.P.  (c)  No.  13509 of  2007

filed by the appellants herein.  

1

INTRODUCTION:

3. The periodic readjustment of the Lok Sabha and

Assembly  Constituencies  is  mandatory  in

representative  systems  where  single  member

constituencies  are  used  for  electing  political

representatives.   The  electoral  districts  are  dawn on

the basis of the last published census figure that they

are  relatively  equal  in  population.   Electoral  districts

that vary significantly in population – a condition called

malapportionment  –  violate  a  central  tenet  of

democracy  that  all  the  votes  cast  must  be  of  equal

weight.  The last delimitation was in 1973 pursuant to

the Delimitation Act, 1972. Since then there has been

increase  of  87% in  the  population  and  most  of  the

constituencies  across  the  country  have  become

malapportioned.  

2

4. The Delimitation Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) is

an Act to provide for the readjustment of the allocation

of seats in the House of the People to the States, the

total  number  of  seats  in  the Legislative  Assembly  of

each State, the division of each State and each Union

territory  having a legislative  Assembly  into  territorial

constituencies for election to the House of the People

and  Legislative  Assemblies  of  the  States  and  Union

territories  and for matters connected therewith.   The

Central  Government  constituted  the  Delimitation

Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) in exercise of

its  power under  Section 3 of  the Act  consisting  of a

retired judge of the Supreme Court as its Chairperson

and other members. The Commission so set up started

functioning w.e.f. 4.7.2002.   

5.  In order to appreciate the nature of functions and

duties entrusted to the Commission it may be just and

necessary to notice the relevant provisions.  

3

6. Section 8 deals with readjustment of number of

seats. It says:

“8. Readjustment of number of seats.— The Commission shall, having regard to the provisions of articles 81, 170, 330 and 332, and also, in relation to the Union territories, except  National  Capital  Territory  of  Delhi, sections  3  and  39  of  the  Government  of Union  Territories  Act,  1963  (20  of  1963) and  in  relation  to  the  National  Capital Territory of  Delhi  sub-clause (b) of  clause (2) of article 239AA,  by order, determine,—

(a)  on  the  basis  of  the  census  figures  as ascertained at the census held in the year 1971  and  subject  to  the  provisions  of section 4, the number of seats in the House of the People to be allocated to each State and determine on the basis  of the census figures as ascertained at the census held in the  year  1[2001]  the  number  of  seats,  if any,  to  be  reserved  for  the  Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State; and

(b)  on  the basis  of  the  census  figures  as ascertained at the census held in the year 1971  and  subject  to  the  provisions  of section 4, the total number of seats to be assigned  to  the  Legislative  Assembly  of each State and determine on the basis  of the  census  figures  as  ascertained  at  the census held in the year 1[2001] the number

4

of  seats,  if  any,  to  be  reserved  for  the Scheduled  Castes  and  for  the  Scheduled Tribes of the State:  

Provided  that  the  total  number  of  seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (b) shall be an integral multiple  of  the  number  of  seats  in  the House of the People allocated to that State under clause (a).

7. Section 9 deals with delimitation of constituencies

which is as under:  

“9. Delimitation of constituencies.—  

(1)  The  Commission  shall,  in  the  manner herein provided, then, distribute the seats in the  House  of  the  People  allocated  to  each State  and  the  seats  assigned  to  the Legislative  Assembly  of  each  State  as readjusted  on  the  basis  of  1971 census  to single-member territorial  constituencies  and delimit  them  on  the  basis  of  the  census figures as ascertained, at the census held in the  year  1991,  having  regard  to  the provisions of the Constitution, the provisions of  the  Act  specified  in  section  8  and  the following provisions, namely:—

(a)  all  constituencies  shall,  as  far  as practicable,  be  geographically  compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries

5

of  administrative  units,  facilities  of communication and public convenience;

(b) every assembly constituency shall be so delimited  as  to  fall  wholly  within  one parliamentary constituency;

(c)  constituencies  in  which  seats  are reserved for  the Scheduled  Castes  shall  be distributed in different parts of the State and located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion  of  their  population to the total is comparatively large; and

(d)  constituencies  in  which  seats  are reserved for  the Scheduled  Tribes  shall,  as far as practicable, be located in areas where the proportion of their population to the total is the largest.

(2) The Commission shall—

(a) publish its proposals for the delimitation of  constituencies,  together  with  the dissenting proposals, if any, of any associate member who desires  publication thereof,  in the  Gazette  of  India  and  in  the  Official Gazettes of all the States concerned and also in such other manner as it thinks fit;

(b)  specify  a  date  on  or  after  which  the proposals shall be further considered by it;  

(c)  consider  all  objections  and  suggestions which may have been received by it before the date so specified, and for the purpose of such consideration, hold one or more public

6

sittings at such place or places in each State as it thinks fit; and

(d)  thereafter  by  one  or  more  orders determine—

(i)  the  delimitation  of  parliamentary constituencies; and

(ii)  the  delimitation  of  assembly constituencies of each State.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:  

8. In  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  there  are  29

Parliamentary  Constituencies  and  230  Assembly

Constituencies.   Out  of  these  29  Parliamentary

Constituencies 27 have 8 Assembly Constituencies each

and 2 Parliamentary Constituencies  have 7 Assembly

Constituencies each.  In pursuance of sub-section (2)

of  Section  9  of  the  Act,  the  Commission  vide  its

Notification dated 19.1.2007 published its proposals for

the  delimitation  of  Parliamentary  and  Assembly

Constituencies  in  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh.  The

7

Commission  invited  objections  and  suggestions  in

regard to its proposals to be submitted on or before

1.2.2007 after which date the proposals were to come

up for further consideration by the Commission.  Under

the said proposals Dhar Parliamentary Constituency is

shown  consisting  of  8  Assembly  Constituencies

including  203-Depalpur  and  the  adjoining  26-Indore

Parliamentary  Constituency  also  had  8  Assembly

Constituencies including 209-Mhow.   The Commission

upon considering the objections and suggestions finally

determined the delimitation of  both Dhar and Indore

Parliamentary  Constituencies.   In  its  final

determination  the  Commission  included  Mhow

Assembly  Constituency  into  Dhar  Parliamentary

Constituency  by  deleting  the  same  from  Indore

Parliamentary  Constituency  as  originally  proposed.

Consequently the Depalpur Assembly Constituency has

been  deleted  from  Dhar  Parliamentary  Constituency

and added to Indore Parliamentary Constituency.  The

8

present controversy centers around final determination

of  the  delimitation  of  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituency.  

9. The main issue that arises for our consideration in

the  present  appeal  is  whether  the  Commission  had

complied with the mandatory requirement as provided

for in Section 9 (2) of the Act, insofar as it concerns

the  shifting  of  Mhow  Assembly  Constituency  from

Indore  Parliamentary  Constituency  and  including  the

same into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency.  

10. Shri  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  submitted  that  the  Commission  in  its  final

determination  decided  to  shift  Mhow  Assembly

Constituency  from Indore  Parliamentary  Constituency

and  included  the  same  into  Dhar  Parliamentary

Constituency  without  complying  with  the  mandatory

requirements of Section 9 of the Act.  The submission

9

was that there was no proposal by the Commission for

shifting  Mhow  Assembly  Constituency  from  Indore

Parliamentary  Constituency  to  Dhar  Parliamentary

Constituency  and on the other hand the Commission in

its  proposals  clearly  indicated  Mhow  Assembly

Constituency  to  be  a  part  of  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituency  for  which  there  was  no  objection

whatsoever from any quarter.  

The  Commission  held  a  public  hearing  on

22.2.2007 at Indore in which there was no suggestion

that  Mhow  Assembly  Constituency  should  be  shifted

from  Indore  Parliamentary  Constituency  to  Dhar

Parliamentary Constituency.  

The  Commission  decided  to  interchange  203-

Depalpur  and  209-Mhow  Assembly  Constituencies

between  25-Dhar  (ST)  and  26-Indore  Parliamentary

Constituencies.  

10

11. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel  for the

respondents  submitted  that  the  decision  of  the

Commission is not ultra vires the provisions of the Act

and  the  Guidelines  and  Methodology  of  the

Commission.   The draft  proposals  of the Commission

for  the  delimitation  of  the  constituencies  vide  its

Notification dated 14.5.2007 was for the whole of the

State of Madhya Pradesh and not with reference to any

one  or  more  Parliamentary  Constituencies.  The

Commission only proposed the names and extents of

the  constituencies  which  were  subject  to  change

including  addition  and  deletion  of  one  or  more

Assembly  Constituencies  in  the  light  of

suggestions/objections to be received from public and

also in keeping with the provisions of the Act and the

Guidelines  and  Methodology  of  the  Commission.  The

decision of the Commission in including 203-Depalpur

Assembly  Constituency  in  26-Indore  Parliamentary

11

Constituency  was  due  to vocal  demand made  in  the

public  meeting  convened  for  further  consideration  of

the  proposals.  As  a  consequence,  to  maintain

equilibrium it became necessary for the Commission to

shift  Mhow Assembly  Constituency for  its  addition  to

Dhar  Parliamentary  Constituency  on  the  grounds  of

contiguity and compactness.  

12. The short question that arises for consideration is

whether Mhow Assembly Constituency could have been

shifted from Indore Parliamentary Constituency for its

inclusion into Dhar Parliamentary Constituency without

there being any proposal whatsoever.  

13. In the present case, one Uma Narayan Singh Patel

and others addressed a representation   on 27.1.2007

to the Chairperson of the Commission raising number

of  objections  to  the  proposal  to  include  Depalpur

Assembly  Constituency  in  Dhar  Parliamentary

12

Constituency and suggested for its inclusion into Indore

Parliamentary Constituency.  It would be useful to refer

in detail  to the objections raised in this regard which

are as under:  

i) 80%  of  the  villages  of  Depalpur  Assembly

Constituency are adjoining Indore city and the

rest 20% are comprised within Indore city;  

ii) 60%  of  the  villages  of  Deepalpur  Assembly

Constituency are only 2 to 40 kms. from Indore

city;  

iii) The  transport  for  communication  from  the

villages of Deepalpur Assembly Constituency to

Indore city is good and available in abundance

while  no  transport  for  communication  is

available  for  Dhar  Parliamentary  Constituency

which  is  hundred  kilometers  away  from  this

Assembly Constituency;  

13

iv) 30% of the villages of the Deeplapur Assembly

Constituency  are  under  Indore  Development

Authority and Municipal Corporation;  

v) 40%  of  the  villages  of  Deepalpur  Assembly

Constituency which revenue oriented are under

Indore  Tehsil.  Due  to  this,  the  Revenue

Inspector Circle will undergo a change including

Hatod RIC.  

Vi) 2%  of  Revenue  boundary  of  Deepalpur

Assembly  Constituency  touches  Dhar

Parliamentary  Constituency  while  70%

boundary  of  Mhow  Assembly  Constituency

touches  Dhar  Parliamentary  Constituency  and

Dhar Revenue Department.

14. It  was  clearly  suggested  that  Mhow  Assembly

Constituency should be included in Dhar Parliamentary

Constituency  in  place  of  Depalpur  Assembly

Constituency.  In the public meeting held on 22.2.2007

14

at  Indore,  suggestions  were  made  to  shift  Depalpur

Assembly  Constituency  to  the  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituency  from  Dhar  Parliamentary  Constituency.

The Commission  after  considering the objections  and

suggestions received by it, and having found merit in

the  suggestions  and  representations  for  including

Depalpur  Assembly  Constituency  in  Indore

Parliamentary  Constituency  got  published  its  final

decision to shift Depalpur Assembly Constituency  from

Dhar Parliamentary Constituency  and made it to be a

part of Indore Parliamentary Constituency  and in the

process  also  shifted  Mhow Assembly  Constituency  to

Dhar Parliamentary Constituency.   

15. The  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  was  that  there  were  no  objections  to  the

proposals  of  the  Commission  in  including  Mhow

Assembly Constituency  as part of Indore Parliamentary

Constituency  and  in  such  a  situation  there  was  no

15

option  to  the  Commission  but  to  go  ahead  with  its

proposals  to  include  Mhow  in  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituency.  

16. Section 9 (1) of Act prescribes distribution of the

seats  in  the  House  of  the  People  allocated  to  each

State  and  the  seats  assigned  to  the  Legislative

Assembly of each State as readjusted on the basis of

1971 census to single-member territorial constituencies

and delimit them on the basis of the census figures as

ascertained,  at  the  census  held  in  the  year  1991.

Section  itself  provides  the  factors  to  be  taken  into

consideration  including  the  provisions  of  the

Constitution,  the  provisions  of  the  Act  specified  in

Section 8 and the following provisions, namely:-

(a)  all  constituencies  shall,  as  far  as practicable,  be  geographically  compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of  administrative  units,  facilities  of communication and public convenience;

16

(b) every assembly constituency shall be so delimited  as  to  fall  wholly  within  one parliamentary constituency;

(c)  constituencies  in  which  seats  are reserved for  the Scheduled  Castes  shall  be distributed in different parts of the State and located, as far as practicable, in those areas where the proportion  of  their  population to the total is comparatively large; and

(d)  constituencies  in  which  seats  are reserved for  the Scheduled  Tribes  shall,  as far as practicable, be located in areas where the proportion of their population to the total is the largest.

17. Section 9(2) of the Act mandates the Commission

to  follow  the  following  steps  before  determining  the

delimitation of any Constituency, namely:

a) publish its proposal for the delimitation of the

constituency,  along with dissenting proposals,

if any;  

b) specify a date on which the proposals shall be

further considered by it;  

17

c) consider  all  objections  and  suggestions  which

may have been received by it before the date

so  specified  and   for  the  purpose  of  such

consideration hold one or more public sittings;

and  

d)  Only  thereafter  the  Commission  can determine

the delimitation of a Constituency.

18. The most important aspect of the matter required

to  be  borne  in  mind  is  that  the  proposals  for

delimitation published under Section 9 (2) of the Act

are  with  regard  to  the  whole  of  the  State.  The

proposals  are  not  a  constituency-centric  one.

Determining  the  delimitation  of  Parliamentary

Constituencies and Assembly Constituencies is a very

complex and lengthy process.  Section 9 (1) of the Act

mandates the Commission as to what are the factors

apart  from  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and

provisions  of  the  Act  required  to  be  taken  into

18

consideration which are noticed herein above.  Section

9  (2)  mandates  the  Commission  to  publish  its

proposals for the delimitation of the constituencies in

the  manner  provided  thereunder.  It  is  true,

determination  of  the  delimitation  of  Parliamentary

Constituencies  and  Assembly  Constituencies,  as  the

case may be,  shall  be only after  consideration of  all

objections  and  suggestions  which  may  have  been

received by the Commission before the specified date

for which purposes the Commission may hold one or

more  public  sittings  at  such  place  or  places  in  each

State as it thinks fit.  The Commission is not required

to hold public meeting in each and every Parliamentary

Constituency.   What  the  Commission  required  is  to

consider  the  objections  and  suggestions  for  its

proposals  before  determining  the  delimitation  of  the

constituencies  in  the  entire  State.   The  proposals

cannot  emanate  from  any  interested  person.   The

distinction  between  the  Commission’s  proposals  and

19

objections  and  suggestions  in  response  to  such

proposals is to be borne in mind. Every suggestion or

objection cannot ultimately result in any fresh proposal

by the Commission.  The Commission is not under any

legal or Constitutional obligation to go on issuing  any

revised proposals depending upon every objection and

suggestion as may be received by it in response to its

proposals. Since the exercise of the delimitation is not

with  reference  to  any  particular  constituency,  the

suggestions  or  objections,  as  the  case  may  be,  in

respect of one constituency may have their impact at

least on one or more of the adjoining constituencies.

In  the  present  case,  various  objections  were  lodged

and  suggestions  were  made  as  to  why  Depalpur

Assembly  Constituency  is  to  be  included  in  Indore

Parliamentary  Constituency  in  which  the  Commission

found  merit  and  those  suggestions  do  have  a  direct

bearing  on  the  delimitation  of  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituency as well.  The cascading effect  cannot be

20

avoided.  The  Commission  could  not  have  retained

Depalpur Assembly Constituency and as well as Mhow

Assembly  Constituency  in  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituency  in  which  event  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituency  would  have  9  Assembly  Constituencies

while Dhar Parliamentary Constituency would have only

7  Assembly  Constituencies  resulting  in   avoidable

malappropriation.    The  Commission’s  power  to

determine  delimitation  of  the  constituency  is  not

unlimited but is structured by the provisions of the Act

and more particularly by Sections 8 and 9 of the Act

apart from the Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment)

Act,  2001  and  Constitution  (Eighty-seventh

Amendment)  Act,  2003  which  have,  inter  alia,

amended  Articles  81,  82,  170,  330  and  332  of  the

Constitution of India.  The effect of these amendments

to the Constitution inter alia is that each Parliamentary

Constituency in each State shall be an integral multiple

of  the  number  of  seats  comprised  therein  and  no

21

Assembly Constituency shall extend to more than one

Parliamentary  Constituency.   The  Commission  in  the

present  case  appears  to  have  determined  the

delimitation  of  both  Dhar  and  Indore  Parliamentary

Constituencies in such a manner whereby each of the

Parliamentary  Constituency  shall  consist  of  equal

number of 8 Assembly Constituencies. It appears the

Commission  had  also  taken  into  consideration  the

contiguity,  geographical  features,  public  convenience

etc. before finally determining the delimitation of both

the Parliamentary Constituencies. We find no illegality

to have been committed by the Commission.  

19. In  the  present  case,  the  High  court  of  Madhya

Pradesh  at  Jabalpur  summarily  dismissed  the  writ

petition under Article  226 of the Constitution praying

for  writ  of  certiorari  for  quashing   the  notification

issued in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of

the  Act  in  respect  of  the  delimitation  of  Indore

22

Parliamentary Constituency. The petition was rejected

on the short ground that the order of the Commission

once published under Section 10(2) of the Act is law

made under Article 327 of the Constitution and cannot

be called in question in any court by virtue of Article

329 of the Constitution.  

20. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted

that only such decision of the Commission determining

delimitation  of  Constituencies  after  following  the

mandatory procedure under Section 9 (2) of the Act, if

it is published, becomes a force of law and it cannot be

questioned in any court.   Thus,  the protection under

Section 10 (2) of the Act as well  as Article 329(a) is

available  only  when  the  mandatory  requirements  of

Section 9(2) are complied with by the Commission.  In

support of the submission reliance was placed on the

decision of this Court in  State of U.P.   Vs.  Pradhan

Singh Khesttra Samiti [ 1995 suppl. (2) SCC 305.   

23

21. The  decision  in  Pradhan  (supra)  upon  which

reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the

appellants in no manner supports the contention urged

before  us.   On the other  hand,  this  Court  found the

approach of the High Court to be objectionable for it

had  gone  into  the  question  of  validity  of  the

delimitation of the constituencies  and also allotments

of seats to such constituencies although clause (a) of

Article 243-O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the

interference by the courts in electoral matters. In the

said  case,  this  court  dealt  with  the  provisions  of

Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O and the provisions of

Panchayat  Raj  Act,1947  and   Section  9  of  the

Delimitation Act, 1950.  It was observed:  

“ What is more objectionable in the approach of the High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution enacts a bar  on  the  interference  by  the  courts  in electoral matters including the questioning of the  validity  of  any  law  relating  to  the delimitation  of  the  constituencies  or  the allotment  of  seats  to  such  constituencies made or purported to be made under Article

24

243-K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the validity  of  the  delimitation  of  the constituencies  and  also  the  allotment  of seats to them. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in  Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission3. In that case,  a  notification  of  the  Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had been a general constituency was notified as reserved for  the  Scheduled  Castes.  This  was challenged on the ground that the petitioner had a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the said constituency which had been taken  away.  This  Court  held  that  the impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment  of  seats  to  such  constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution, and that an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act  showed that the matters therein dealt with were not subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. There  was  a  very  good  reason  for  such  a provision because if the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the result would be that any voter, if he so  wished,  could  hold  up  an  election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the  constituencies  from  court  to  court. Although an order under Section 8 or Section 9  of  the  Delimitation  Commission  Act  and published under Section 10(1) of that Act is not part of an Act of Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10(4) of that Act puts such an order in the same position as a law made

by Parliament itself which could only be made  by  it  under  Article  327.  If  we  read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O in place of Article 327 and Sections 2(kk), 11-F and 12- BB of the Act in place of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area  nor  of  the  constituencies  in  the  said areas  and  the  allotments  of  seats  to  the constituencies  could  have  been  challenged nor  the  court  could  have  entertained  such challenge except on the ground that before

25

the delimitation,  no objections  were invited and  no  hearing  was  given.  Even  this challenge  could  not  have  been  entertained after the notification for holding the elections was  issued.  The  High  Court  not  only entertained the challenge but has also gone into  the  merits  of  the  alleged  grievances although the challenge  was made after  the notification for the election was issued on 31- 8-1994.”

22. It is true the observations made in this judgment

“that neither the delimitation of the Panchayat area nor

the constituencies in the said area and the allotments

of  seats  to  the  constituencies  could  have  been

challenged nor the court could have entertained such

challenge  except  on  the  ground  that  before  the

delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing

was given” may lend some support to the submission

made  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that

there  could  be  a  challenge  in  case  where  final

determination  of  delimitation  of  constituencies  was

made without inviting any objections whatsoever. But

that is  not  the ratio  of  the judgment.   This  court  in

Pardhan (supra) was not considering any similar issue

26

as the one that had arisen for our consideration in the

present case.  This Court did not take any view that the

proposals in respect of each constituency shall have to

be  treated  as  an  independent  proposal  and  the

Commission’s  power to determine  delimitation of  the

constituencies is  with reference to each constituency.

The objections and/or suggestions, as the case may be,

are required to be taken into consideration treating the

proposals as for whole of the State and delimitation of

the constituencies with reference to a State as a Unit.  

23. In  Meghraj  Kothari   Vs.  Delimitation

Commission  &  Ors. [(1967)  1  SCR400],  a

Constitution  Bench  of  this  court  while  interpreting

Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Delimitation Commission

Act, 1962 which are in pari materia with the provisions

of the present Act, observed:  

“In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation  of  constituencies  could  only  be entertained  by  the  Commission  before  the date specified.  Once the orders made by the

27

Commission  under  Sections  8  and  9  were published in the Gazette of India and in the official  gazettes  of  the  States  concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law.  There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision.  If the orders  made under  Sections  8  and  9  were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an  election  indefinitely  by  questioning  the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court.   Section 10 (2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that  the  orders  under  Sections  8  and  9 published under  Section 10 (1) were  to be treated  as  law  which  was  not  to  be questioned in any court.  

It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published under Section 10 (1) is  not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the same.”

24. The Constitution Bench went to the extent  of

saying that “an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of

the Act  shows that  the matters  therein  dealt  with

were not to be subject to the scrutiny of any court of

law….……. The provision of Section 10(4) puts orders

under ss 8 and 9 as published under Section 10 (1)

28

in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself

which…….  could only be done under Article 327, and

consequently the objection that the notification was

not to be treated as law cannot be given effect to”.  

CONCLUSION:  

25. In  the  present  case,  the  Commission  finally

determined  the  delimitation  of  Parliamentary

Constituencies  in  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  after

considering all objections and suggestions received by

it before the specified date and got published its orders

in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of the

State as is required under Section 10 (1) of the Act.

The orders so published puts them “in the same street

as a law made by Parliament itself”. Consequently that

Notification is to be treated as law and required to be

given effect to.

29

26. For  all  the  aforesaid  reasons,  we  find  no

merit  in  this  appeal.   The  appeal  shall  accordingly

stand dismissed with no order as to costs.  

……………………………………J.      (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

……………………………………J.      (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi;  March 31, 2009

30