APHC010134662024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 75 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:- 24 [3483] Integrated Tribal (E & R) Development Society, ...Petitioner Vs. The Union Of India and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. A Syam Sundar Reddy Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. Avinash Desai, Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. D. S. Sivadarshan, for Election Commission of India CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 19th March 2025 per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present petition has been filed in public interest challenging the action of the Delimitation Commission of India in including the Parvathipuram mandal as a part of the Parvathipuram Assembly Constituency, which has been reserved for the Scheduled Caste category for the legislative assembly in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the Election Commission of India that in terms of the bar contained in Article 329 of the Constitution of India, the present petition was not maintainable. Reliance is 2 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL) No: 75 of 2024 also placed upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission1 as also a recent judgment rendered by three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas v. Union of India2. 3. Article 329 of the Constitution of India inter alia clearly envisages that “the validity of any law” relating to the delimitation of Constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any Court. Article 327 envisages the power of the Parliament to make by law provisions with respect to all matters, among others, regarding the preparation of electoral rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses. In terms of the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002, (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”) and, in particular, Section 10, which envisages that upon publication in the Gazette of India of the orders made under Section 8 or 9 of the Act, the same “shall have the force of law” and “shall not be called in question in any Court”. In the present case, the Delimitation Commission has issued orders under Section 8 and 9 of the Act on 22.01.2007. At this stage, it 1 AIR 1967 SC 669 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1712 3 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL) No: 75 of 2024 would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Meghraj Kothari (supra) wherein it was held: “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 Commission under ss. 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 ss. 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 ss. 8 and 9 published under s. 10 (1) were to be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court. It is true that an order under s.8 or 9 published under s.10(1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the same.” 4. Subsequently, this proposition was reiterated in Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas (supra), wherein it was held: “56. The 2006 Notification, having the force of law under Article 327, is protected also by virtue of Article 329 of the Constitution, which reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;” 57. Thus, in view of Article 329 of the Constitution, the Delimitation Notification of 2006 cannot be called into question. Any changes to the 2006 Notification, could only have been made in accordance with the Delimitation Act. The Act envisages changes/suggestions only until the publication of the final notification, consequent to which, the notification assumes the force of law in supersession of any other law for the time being in force. In view of Article 329, it is beyond the realm of judicial review.” 5. Be that as it may, since notifications under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act have already been issued, the issues raised in the present petition can no 4 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL) No: 75 of 2024 longer be agitated in terms of the specific bar as discussed hereinabove. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 5 HCJ & RC, J W.P(PIL) No: 75 of 2024 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition (PIL) No: 75 of 2024 DATE :19.03.2025 AKN 98