Constitution of India – Part IX – Arts.243-B, 243-C r/w 243B(1), 243-O & 243-ZG – Lead applicant (in present IAs) is the appellant in C.A.Nos.5467-5469/17, wherein an order of the Madras High Court refusing to issue certain directions to the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission was challenged – It was claimed therein that the State Government was deliberately postponing elections; unconstitutionally altering constituencies and refusing to effect rotation for gaining undue political advantage – On 12.11.2019, the State Government issued notification dividing four existing districts of Tamil Nadu to create nine new districts – In view of deference to various Supreme Court orders, the State Election Commission on 02.12.2019 announced the Elections Programme for all Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels – Present IAs filed inter alia to strike down the said Notification and direction to conduct local body elections only after delimitation of the newly carved districts – Held: Constitutional object of Part IX, envisaging democratisation of grass-root level administration, cannot be effectively achieved unless the delimitation exercise for constitution of local bodies at all levels is properly undertaken – Such exercise in the State of Tamil Nadu must keep in view the criteria for delimitation of wards prescribed under the 2017 Regulations, which criteria must itself not be contrary to Art.243-C r/w Art.243-B(1) – Election process as notified on 02.12.2019, in respect of the newly constituted nine districts cannot be held unless fresh delimitation exercise in respect thereto is first completed – State Government cannot justify holding local body elections of these nine districts by relying upon Supreme Court’s order dated. 18.11.2019 as the said order itself mandates notification of elections only after completing “all legal formalities”– Directions issued – Further, the only grievance raised in the main appeals was that the local body elections ought be held on the basis of the 2011 Census and not of 2001; and considering how the respondents have already used the 2011 Census while conducting the latest delimitation exercise (except in the newly reconstituted nine districts), these appeals are rendered infructuous – Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 – Tamil Nadu Delimitation Commission Act, 2017 – Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations, 2017 – Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1995 – r.6.
Disposing of the IAs, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Before the election process could begin as per the Sate Election Commission’s Press Release dated 2 nd December, 2019, the State of Tamil Nadu increased the number of districts from 31 to 39 and also restructured various talukas. However, with regard to posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of District Panchayat Councils, elections are still sought to be held only for 31 posts. As per Article 243-B, panchayats have to mandatorily be constituted in a State at the village, intermediate and district levels. Article 243-C requires the State, as far as is practicable, to maintain a similar ratio between the population residing within the territory of a particular panchayat and the number of seats allocated to it, across all panchayats in the State. Further, each panchayat must be divided into territorial constituencies and per Article 243-D, seats in proportion to their population must be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in each panchayat. The constitutional object of Part IX cannot be effectively achieved unless the delimitation exercise for constitution of local bodies at all levels is properly undertaken. Such exercise in the State of Tamil Nadu must keep in view the criteria for delimitation of wards prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Delimitation Regulations, 2017 (formulated under the Tamil Nadu Delimitation Commission Act, 2017), which criteria must itself not be contrary to Article 243C read with Article 243-B(1) of the Constitution. Noticing how at the completion of the delimitation process there were only
31 revenue districts, but despite a subsequent increase in number of districts to 39, no fresh delimitation exercise has been undertaken, it is clear that the State Government cannot fulfil the aforestated Constitutional mandate. There is no identified data elucidating population proportions and hence requisite reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be provided for, both in re village panchayat wards or Chairman/Vice-Chairman of District bodies. The election process as notified by the State Election Commission on 2 nd December, 2019, in respect of the newly constituted nine districts cannot be held unless fresh delimitation exercise in respect thereto is first completed. The State Government cannot justify holding local body elections of these nine districts by relying upon Supreme Court’s order dated 18 th November, 2019 as the said order itself mandates notification of elections only after completing “all legal formalities”. The contention of the respondents that the present proceedings amount to “calling in question an election” and hence not being maintainable in view of the express constitutional embargos of Articles 243-O and 243-ZG does not impress, for the present proceedings are only to further the expeditious completion of pre-requisites of a fair election. [Paras 10-14] [712-D-E-H; 713-A-G]
1.2 Directions:
a) The Respondent-authorities shall hold elections to all Panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels, except those in the nine reconstituted districts; b) The Respondents (including the Delimitation Commission) are directed to delimit the nine newly-constituted districts in accordance with law and thereafter hold elections for their panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels within a period of four months; c) There shall be no legal impediment against holding elections for Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels for rest of the districts; d) State Election Commission shall notify elections for the panchayats at village, intermediate and district levels in respect of all districts except the nine re-constituted districts as per the details given in direction ‘a’; e) While conducting elections, the respondents shall provide proportionate reservation at all levels, in accordance with the Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Reservation of Seats and Rotation of Reserved Seats) Rules,1995. [Para 15] [714-E-H; 715-A-D]
1.3 The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu has also agreed to proceed with the election process as directed. Since, the only grievance raised in the main appeals was that the local body elections ought be held on the basis of the 2011 Census and not of 2001; and considering how the respondents have already used the 2011 Census while conducting the latest delimitation exercise (except in the newly re-constituted nine districts), these appeals have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. [Paras 16, 17] [715-D-F]
Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and Others (2000) 8 SCC 216 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 34 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.