Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs Union of India and Ors.
Background
The appellant challenged a 2006 order of the Delimitation Commission that reserved the Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency in Gujarat for the Scheduled Caste community. The Gujarat High Court had dismissed his writ petition at the threshold, holding that Article 329(a) of the Constitution completely barred courts from examining delimitation orders. The appellant approached the Supreme Court against that dismissal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to treat Article 329(a) as an absolute bar on judicial review of delimitation orders. Relying on earlier three-judge bench rulings, the Court clarified that constitutional courts can still intervene in delimitation matters if an order is manifestly arbitrary, mala fide, or irreconcilable with constitutional values: the bar under Article 329(a) is meant to prevent delays to the election process, not to shut out all scrutiny forever. However, since the actual delimitation exercise dated back to 2006 and a fresh delimitation had since taken place, the Court declined to disturb the 2006 reservation itself. It set aside only the portion of the High Court's judgment that had declared a total bar on judicial review, while leaving the appellant free to approach the High Court afresh if warranted by later developments.
Lesson Learnt
Even provisions that appear to give a government body's decision complete immunity from court review (like delimitation orders) are not entirely beyond judicial scrutiny. Courts can still step in if a decision is clearly arbitrary or unconstitutional, though such review is exercised sparingly and within limits.