Haji Abdul Gani Khan & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.

Delimitation Act, 2002 – s.9 – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – ss.62 and 63 – Constitution of Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Exercise of delimitation/ readjustment of the constituencies undertaken on the basis of 2011 census figures – Challenge to – Held: By virtue of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of s.62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, the year 2001 appearing in sub-section (1) of s.9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 will have to be read as 2011 – Thus, nothing illegal about the exercise of delimitation/ readjustment of the constituencies undertaken by the Delimitation Commission for purposes of dividing the Union Territory into 90 constituencies on the basis of the 2011 census figures – Clause (b) of sub-Section

(1) of s.62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act amended the Delimitation Act, 2002 by providing that words and figures ‘census held in the year 2001’ appearing in the Delimitation Act shall be construed as ‘census held in the year 2011’ – To its application to the Union territory of J & K, the year 2001 in sub-section (1) of s.9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 has been substituted by the year 2011 and therefore, distribution of seats in the House of the People and seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly will have to be readjusted on the basis of 2011 census and the delimitation will have to be carried out on the basis of the figures of the census held in the year 2011 – Effect of s.63 is that once the exercise of readjustment/delimitation is made on the basis of 2011 census figures, the same will be frozen till the relevant figures of the first census taken after 2026 are available – Therefore, the exercise of delimitation/readjustment of the seats in the Union Territory of J & K was required to be made by the Delimitation Commission on the basis of the figures of the 2011 census – In view of s.63, further readjustment can be carried out only after the publication of figures from the census held after the year 2026.

ORS.

Delimitation Act, 2002 – ss.10(6) and 10A – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – s.62 – Action of constituting a Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Delimitation exercise – Time limit provided u/s.10(6) – If mandatory – Held: s.10A of the Act, 2002 itself indicates that the time limit of 31st July 2008 fixed under sub-Section (6) of s.10 is not sacrosanct as it confers a power on the Hon’ble President to defer the delimitation exercise in a State under certain circumstances – Sub-section (6) of s.10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 uses the word “endeavour” – Thus, the time limit provided in sub-section (6) of s.10 was never intended to be mandatory – While amending s.2(f) of the Delimitation Act by the J&K Reorganisation Act, sub-section

(6) of s.10 has not been amended for enlarging the period provided thereunder – However, the intention of the legislature as reflected in sub-sections (2) and (3) of s.62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act is crystal clear – The very fact that the duty of making the readjustment as per sub-sections (2) and (3) of s.62 on the basis of the 2011 census figures has been entrusted to the Delimitation Commission suggests that the legislature intended that the Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir will remain unaffected by the requirement of completing the exercise by the end of July 2008 – The provisions of sub-Sections (2) and (3) of s.62 will have to be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the intention of the legislature – If it is held that due to the failure of the legislature to modify the time limit provided in sub-Section (6) of s.10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, the Central Government is powerless to appoint a Delimitation Commission for the newly created Union territory, the provisions of s.62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act will be rendered nugatory.

Delimitation Act, 2002 – Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Chairperson of the Delimitation Commission – Term of appointment of the Chairperson – Under notification dated 6 th March 2020, appointment of the Chairperson of the Delimitation Commission who was a retired Judge of this Court was for a period of one year – By notification dated 3rd March 2021, the said period was extended up to two years – By third impugned notification dated 21 st February 2022, the said period of two years was extended to two years and two months – Held: Once the Delimitation Commission was established, there is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed – Delimitation Act, 2002 is silent about the term of the appointment of the Chairperson. Constitution of India – Arts. 3, 4 and 239A – Conversion of an existing State into one or more Union territories – Power of the Parliament – Conjoint reading of Arts. 3,4 and 239A – Held: Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories.

Practice and Procedure – Constitutional validity of a statute – Challenge to – Challenge has to be specifically pleaded – Held: When a party wants to challenge the constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail the grounds on which the validity of the statute is sought to be challenged – The Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the law made by the Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in the pleadings – The reason is that there is always a presumption of the constitutionality of laws – The burden is always on the person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it – A Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from the pleadings that the challenge to the validity is implicit. Interpretation of Statutes – Held: A statute cannot be interpreted in a manner that will render some of its provisions otiose – A statute must be construed and interpreted in such a manner as to make it workable.

Doctrines/ Principles – Equality – Two unequals cannot be treated as equals.

Words and Phrases – Word “endeavour” – Use of the word in Sub-section (6) of s.10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1. Issue of applicability of Article 170 having the title “Composition of the Legislative Assemblies” to the Union Territory of J & K.

1.1. Article 170 forms part of Chapter III under the title “The State Legislature”. Chapter III has been incorporated in ORS.

Part VI of the Constitution which deals with the States. Though much emphasis was laid on the violation of the provisions contained in the second Proviso to Clause (3) of Article 170 by the petitioners, but the said Article does not deal with the legislatures of Union Territory at all. Articles 239A and 239AA which are included in Part VIII of the Constitution are the Articles that deal with the creation of a body to function as legislature and Council of Ministers for certain Union Territories. [Para 18][532B-D]

1.2. Article 239A as it originally stood provided that Parliament may by law create for the Union Territory of Puducherry a body to function as a Legislature for the Union Territory or a Council of Ministers or both. Such a body to act as a Legislature of the Union Territory covered by Article 239A may be elected or partly nominated and partly elected. By virtue of Section 13 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, with effect from 31st October 2019, Article 239A became applicable to the Union Territory of J and K. As noted by clause (2) of Article 239A, the law contemplated by clause (1) of Article 239A shall not be deemed to be an amendment to the Constitution for the purposes of Article

368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending the Constitution. [Para 18][532-GH; 533-A-B]

1.3. On a conjoint reading of Articles 3,4 and 239A, it is found that:- (a) Parliament by making a law can convert an existing State into one or more Union territories; (b) Parliament is empowered by law to create a body of legislature for the Union territories of Puducherry and J&K. Accordingly, sub-Section (2) of Section 14 of the J & K Reorganisation Act provides that there shall be a Legislative Assembly for the Union Territory of J & K.; and (c) Even if the law made by Parliament creating a body of legislature for Union territories of Puducherry and J&K has the effect of amending certain parts of the Constitution, it shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. [Para 19][533-B-E]

1.4. As far as the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory of J & K is concerned, Article 170 will have no application as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI which deals with only the State Legislature. It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories. The reason is that the Legislative Assemblies of the concerned Union Territories will be governed by the law made by the Parliament in accordance with Article 239A and not by the provisions of Chapter III of Part VI. As Article 170 is not applicable to the Legislature of the Union Territory of J & K, the main thrust of the argument that certain provisions of the J&K Reorganisation Act and actions taken thereunder are in conflict with Article 170 and in particular Clause

(3) thereof is clearly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. [Para 23][534-D-F]

Issue of delimitation of constituencies of the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory of J and K.

2.1. There were two earlier enactments dealing with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission. The first one was the Delimitation Commission Act, 1962 and the second one was the Delimitation Act, 1972. Both the Acts were not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir as the definition of the State incorporated in both Acts specifically excluded the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The same is the case with the Delimitation Act, 2002. Section 3 of the J&K RP Act laid down the requirement of the establishment of the Delimitation Commission which provided that the Delimitation Commission shall distribute the seats in the Legislative Assembly to single member territorial constituencies and delimit them having regard to various factors mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 3. Section 4-B of the J&K RP Act provided for the Delimitation Commission to pass an order regarding the delimitation of constituencies and publish the same. In fact, the Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies Order, 1995 was issued which was applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. [Para 24][534-G-H; 535-A-B]

2.2. By virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 14 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, the said Delimitation Order of 1995 was amended as provided in the Third Schedule thereof. The Third Schedule contains the details of the amendments to the delimitation of the assembly constituencies made by the said ORS.

Delimitation Order of 1995 in relation to the existing 83 assembly constituencies out of a total 107 as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 14. 24 constituencies covered by the Pakistan occupied area were obviously not covered by the Delimitation Order. Thus, by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 14, the delimitation of 83 constituencies of the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of J & K was incorporated in the form of the Third Schedule which sets out the boundaries of and the areas incorporated in the new individual 83 constituencies. [Para 25][535-D-F]

2.3. Part V of the J & K Reorganisation Act deals with the Delimitation of Constituencies. By virtue of clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 62, the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002 were made applicable to the Union Territory of J & K with effect from 31st October 2019. [Para 26][535-F-G]

2.4. The delimitation of 83 constituencies of the Union Territory was made under the J&K Reorganisation Act and was incorporated in the Third Schedule as provided in sub-section

(5) of Section 14. By virtue of the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 60, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory was required to be increased from 107 to

114. Thus, by excluding 24 seats from Pakistan occupied areas, the mandate was to increase the seats from 83 to 90. For giving effect to the increase in the number of seats as aforesaid, the exercise of delimitation for dividing the Union Territory into 90 constituencies and determining the number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes was required to be undertaken. Sub-section (1) of Section 60 provides that the said delimitation exercise may be undertaken by the Election Commission. However, sub-section (2) of Section 62 provides that the readjustment of the constituencies as provided under Section 60 in the successor Union Territory of J & K into assembly constituencies shall be carried out by the Delimitation Commission to be constituted under the Delimitation Act, 2002 as amended by the J&K Reorganisation Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 60 provides that the exercise of the division of the newly constituted Union Territory into 90 assembly constituencies and providing for reservation may be undertaken by the Election Commission. However, the purport of Section 62 is that if a Delimitation Commission is constituted under the Delimitation Act 2002, the exercise provided by clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section

(1) of Section 60 shall be carried out by the Delimitation Commission. However, sub-section (2) of Section 62 refers to the readjustment of the constituencies. But, the purport of subsection (2) of Section 62 is that the readjustment means the creation of 90 constituencies in the newly set up Union territory. Thus, the process of readjustment contemplated by sub-section

(2) of Section 62 is nothing but the exercise of delimitation under sub-section (1) of Section 60. [Para 27][539-A-F]

2.5. The provisions of the Delimitation Act 2002 indicate what is readjustment. By virtue of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, the year 2001 stands substituted by the year 2011 in relation to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of J & K. Under Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, a specific power has been conferred on the Delimitation Commission of conducting the Delimitation exercise. By virtue of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act, the year 2001 appearing in subsection (1) of Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 will have to be read as 2011. Therefore, the Delimitation Commission established under the Order dated 6 th March 2020 had to undertake the exercise of delimitation or readjustment on the basis of the census figures of 2011 as the earlier exercise of delimitation of the constituencies of the erstwhile State was not made on the basis of the census figures of 2011. For the reasons stated above, there is nothing illegal about the exercise of delimitation/readjustment of the constituencies undertaken by the Delimitation Commission for the purposes of dividing the Union Territory into 90 constituencies on the basis of the 2011 census figures. [Paras 28 and 29][539-G; 540-D-E; 541-F-H; 542A]

2.6. In the First Schedule to the RP Act of 1950, a total of 6 seats were allocated to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir with no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. ORS.

Section 10 of the J&K Reorganisation Act provides that out of the 6 seats allocated to the erstwhile State, 5 will be allocated to the Union Territory of J & K and one will be to the Union Territory of Ladakh. That is how Section 11 provides thereof that the Delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies Order, 1976 stands amended as provided in the Second Schedule of the said Act. Thus, the delimitation of the five parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K and one constituency of the Union Territory of Ladakh was made by virtue of Section 11 as provided in the Second Schedule. [Para 30][542-B-D]

2.7. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the J&K Reorganisation Act provides that considering the increase in the number of seats of the Legislative Assembly, the adjustments in the boundaries and description of the extent of the Parliamentary Constituencies in each Union Territory may be made by the Election Commission. Sub-section (3) of Section 62 provides that readjustment of the constituencies as provided in Section 11 in the successor Union Territories into Parliamentary Constituencies shall be carried out by the Delimitation Commission. The readjustment referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 62 is the adjustment of boundaries and description of the extent of the Parliamentary Constituencies as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 60. This became necessary as a result of the requirement of readjustment /delimitation of 90 constituencies of the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, there is no illegality associated with the delimitation /readjustment of Parliamentary constituencies of the Union Territory of J & K undertaken by the Delimitation Commission. [Para 31][542-E-G]

Legality of the appointment of the Delimitation Commission by the Notification of 6th March 2020

3.1. When the impugned notification dated 6th March 2020 constituting the Delimitation Commission requires the Delimitation Commission to undertake the exercise of the delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies in the Union Territory of J & K, it refers to the exercise of readjustment as provided in sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 62 which is nothing but delimitation exercise contemplated by sub-section

(1) of Section 60 due to the reason of the increase in the membership of the Legislative Assembly from 83 to 90. Moreover, the readjustment was necessary to be made on the basis of the census figures of the 2011 census as contemplated by Section 4 and sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 as amended by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act. [Para 32][542-H; 544-A-C]

3.2. The Delimitation Act, 2002 contemplates the constitution of only one Delimitation Commission and not more than one. The Delimitation Act, 2002 was made applicable for the first time to the State of Jammu and Kashmir with effect from 31st October 2019. Even the Delimitation Acts of 1962 and 1972 were not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. By virtue of the J&K Reorganisation Act, not only provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002 were made applicable to the Union Territory of J & K, but a mandatory duty of readjustment of the constituencies in the Union Territory both of the Legislative Assembly and Parliament was entrusted to the Delimitation Commission by sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 62. Till 31st October 2019, the Delimitation Commission for the State/Union Territory of J & K under the Delimitation Act, 2002 could not have been established as the said enactment was not made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir till then. [Para 33][544-D-E]

3.3. Sub-section (6) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 uses the word “endeavour”. Section 10A of the Delimitation Act, 2002 itself indicates that the time limit of 31st July 2008 fixed under sub-Section (6) of Section 10 is not sacrosanct as it confers a power on the Hon’ble President to defer the delimitation exercise in a State under certain circumstances. Thus, the time limit provided in sub-section (6) of Section 10 was never intended to be mandatory. While amending Section 2(f) of the Delimitation Act by the J&K Reorganisation Act, sub-section (6) of Section

10 has not been amended for enlarging the period provided thereunder. However, the intention of the legislature as reflected in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 62 of the J&K ORS.

Reorganisation Act is crystal clear. The very fact that the duty of making the readjustment as per sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section

62 on the basis of the 2011 census figures has been entrusted to the Delimitation Commission suggests that the legislature intended that the Delimitation Commission for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir will remain unaffected by the requirement of completing the exercise by the end of July 2008. The provisions of sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Section 62 will have to be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the intention of the legislature. If it is held that due to the failure of the legislature to modify the time limit provided in sub-Section (6) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act, 2002, the Central Government is powerless to appoint a Delimitation Commission for the newly created Union territory, the provisions of Section 62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act will be rendered nugatory. A statute cannot be interpreted in a manner that will render some of its provisions otiose. A statute must be construed and interpreted in such a manner as to make it workable. Therefore, the argument based on sub-Section (6) of Section 10 of the Delimitation Act 2002 will have to be rejected. [Para 34][544-H; 545-A-E]

3.4. Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution enable the Parliament to create new States and Union territories. Accordingly, the two new Union territories have been created. The J&K Reorganisation Act which created the two new Union territories assigns the role of readjustment of constituencies to the Delimitation Commission under the Delimitation Act, 2002. Article 4 of the Constitution permits the Parliament to incorporate such provisions in the law made in accordance with Article 3 for the formation of new States and Union territories, which may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law. Such a law may also contain provisions as to representations in Parliament and in the Legislature of the State or States affected by such law. Therefore, such law which is made under Article 3 can always provide for readjustment of the Constituencies in the newly constituted States or Union territories through the Delimitation Commission. Hence, there is no illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission under the impugned Order dated 6th March 2020. [Para 35][545-F-H; 546-A]

3.5. Under the notification dated 6 th March 2020, the appointment of the Chairperson of the Delimitation Commission who was a retired Judge of this Court was for a period of one year. By the notification dated 3rd March 2021, the said period was extended up to two years. By the third impugned notification dated 21 st February 2022, the said period of two years was extended to two years and two months. Once the Delimitation Commission was established, there is nothing wrong if the Central Government extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson till the task of delimitation/readjustment was completed. The Delimitation Act, 2002 is silent about the term of the appointment of the Chairperson. [Para 36][546-B-C] Exclusion of the North-Eastern States from the purview of the notification dated 6th March 2020

4.1. Another challenge is to that part of the second impugned notification dated 31st March 2021 by which the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland were excluded from the purview of the Delimitation Commission constituted under the notification dated 6th March 2020. In the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India, reliance has been placed on the letter dated 22nd February 2021 issued by the Deputy Secretary (NE-III), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Delimitation Commission set up on 12th July 2002 under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge of this Court had completed the delimitation exercise in respect of the entire country except for four North-Eastern States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland. It is stated that delimitation of these four States was deferred due to security reasons. Section 10A of the Delimitation Act, 2002 permitted such a course to be adopted. Though these four States were a part of the notification dated 6th March 2020, it is stated in the letter dated 22nd February 2021 that there were number of petitions pending in this Court as well as in the Manipur High Court concerning delimitation exercise in North-Eastern States and that in the Court cases, discrepancies in census figures of 2001 in relation to these States were pointed out. In fact, it is stated that a number of notices have been issued ORS.

regarding the said discrepancies. Therefore, the said letter was issued with the approval of the competent authority in which it was stated that it may not be conducive to grant an extension for the process of delimitation in the four North-Eastern States. The term of the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission constituted under the first impugned notification dated 6th march 2020 was to expire on 5th March 2021. In view of the aforesaid letter, while extending the term of the Chairman by one more year by the second impugned notification dated 3rd March 2021, the said four States were excluded. Thus, in effect, the term of the Delimitation Commission constituted under the notification dated 6th March 2020 was extended by a period of one year only in relation to the Union territory of J & K. By the third impugned notification, the period was further extended by a period of two months. Section 10A of the Delimitation Act, 2002 itself permits the postponement of the exercise of delimitation in certain contingencies. Moreover, the position and the status of the newly created Union Territory of J&K under the Constitution is completely different from the four North-Eastern States. In its applicability to the Union Territory of J & K, Sections 4 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 stand amended by requiring readjustment to be carried out on the basis of the census figures of 2011. In case of the North Eastern States, there is no such amendment. Therefore, two unequal cannot be treated as equals. Hence, the argument based on the violation of Constitutional provisions including Article 14 deserves to be rejected. [Para 37][546-D-H; 547-A-E]

4.2. There is a great deal of substance in the argument of the learned Solicitor General that the challenge to the notification dated 6th March 2020 was belatedly made by filing the present petition on 28th March 2022 and for the said delay, there is no valid explanation. Moreover, the notification dated 6th March 2020 was substantially acted upon by completing the exercise of delimitation as the draft Order was also published on 14th March 2022. [Para 39][548-B]

4.3. In the writ petition, the first prayer is for challenging the increase in number of seats from 107 to 114. The said provision is made by sub-Section (1) of Section 60. Without challenging the legality of any of the provisions of the J&K Reorganisation Act, it is contended that the Act of increasing the number of seats is violative of Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. Article 81 deals with the composition of the House of the People; Article 82 deals with the readjustment and allocation of seats of the House of Parliament after the census and Article 170 deals with legislatures of the States. None of these provisions deal with the Legislature of any Union territory. Article

330 deals with the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People. Article 332 deals with the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Both these provisions do not deal with reservation of seats for the House of legislature of Union Territories. In any case, even assuming that Article 332 can be applied to the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislatures of Union territories, it is not shown how the act of increasing the total number of seats in the legislature will offend Article 332, so long as the reservation is maintained as per the formula provided under Article 332. [Para 40][548-C-F]

4.4. Another argument sought to be made is that the provision made for 114 seats in the legislature of the newly constituted Union Territory of J & K is illegal. This submission calls for no consideration as there is no challenge to the validity of sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the J&K Reorganisation Act. [Para 41][548-G]

4.5. Another argument was canvassed that the Delimitation Order of 2008 published by the Election Commission cannot be deviated from. The perusal of the said Order shows that it reproduces the delimitation of the Parliamentary and Legislative Assembly Constituencies made by the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Orders of 1976 and 1995 for the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Both the orders of 1976 and 1995 have been expressly modified by the J&K Reorganisation Act by virtue of Sections 11(4) and 14(5) as provided in the second and third Schedules thereto. Hence, the argument deserves to be rejected. [Para 42][548-H; 549-A-B] ORS.

4.6. The petitioners have overlooked the fact that clause

(b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act has further amended the Delimitation Act, 2002 by providing that words and figures ‘census held in the year 2001’ appearing in the Delimitation Act shall be construed as ‘census held in the year 2011’. To its application to the Union territory of J & K, the year 2001 in sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 has been substituted by the year 2011 and therefore, distribution of seats in the House of the People and seats assigned to the Legislative Assembly will have to be readjusted on the basis of 2011 census and the delimitation will have to be carried out on the basis of the figures of the census held in the year 2011. The effect of Section 63 is that once the exercise of readjustment/delimitation is made on the basis of 2011 census figures, the same will be frozen till the relevant figures of the first census taken after 2026 are available. Therefore, the exercise of delimitation/readjustment of the seats in the Union Territory of J & K was required to be made by the Delimitation Commission on the basis of the figures of the 2011 census. In view of Section 63, further readjustment can be carried out only after the publication of figures from the census held after the year 2026. [Para 43][549-C-E]

4.7. Reliance placed on the opinion of the Attorney General is misplaced as it deals only with the provisions of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. The petitioners cannot rely upon the answer given by Hon’ble Minister in the Lok Sabha as it deals with delimitation of Constituencies in Telangana in the context of Article 170. In any event, the said opinion as well as the answer given by the Hon’ble Minister have no bearing on the interpretation of the J&K Reorganisation Act. [Para 44][549-FG]

4.8. A vague attempt was made by the petitioners to submit that the exercise which is undertaken for the newly created Union territory of J & K was not undertaken on the basis of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 and Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. In both the Acts, there is no provision which is pari materia with clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section

62 of the J&K Reorganisation Act which amended the provisions of the Delimitation Act 2002 in its applicability to the newly formed Union Territories by substituting the year 2001 with 2011. [Para 45][549-G-H; 550-A]

4.9. There is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. The issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending before this Court. Therefore, this Court has not dealt with the issue of validity. Nothing stated in this judgment shall be construed as giving imprimatur to the exercise of powers under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution. [Para 46][550-B-C] Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steel Casting, 2004 (6) SCC 36; Mangal Singh & Anr. v. Union of India, 1967 (2) SCR 109; Meghraj Kothari v.

Delimitation Commission & Ors., 1967 (1) SCR 400 – referred to.