Express News Service
NEW DELHI: A writ petition has been moved before the Supreme court challenging the government notifications for the delimitation exercise in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The petition filed by Haji Abdul Gani Khan and Dr Mohammad Ayub Mattoo states that the increase in the number of seats from 107 to 114 is ultra vires the constitutional provisions such as Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 and statutory provisions particularly Section 63 of the Jammu & Kashmir Re-organisation Act 2019.
The plea raises questions as to the delimitation exercise in J&K when article 170 of the Constitution of India provided that the next delimitation in India will be taken up after 2026.
The plea states that the action of the Central government in issuing the notifications for the Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies for the UT of Jammu and Kashmir was without jurisdiction as it usurped the jurisdiction of The Election Commission of India, reports Live Law.
It contends, “According to Election Laws, it is only the Election Commission that must carry out the process of delimitation (necessary updation) after the Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Delimitation Order, 2008 is notified. Nobody is competent to carry out the delimitation process since the delimitation has been completed and the Delimitation Commission itself has become inappropriate. Issuance of Notification by the Law and Legislative Department appointing the Delimitation Commission is without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and ultra vires to the election laws apart from J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019.”
ALSO READ | J&K delimitation panel shares revised draft report with associate members
“It is submitted that conducting delimitation only for Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir is unconstitutional as it amounts to further Classification as held in Subramanian Swamy case …..”
“The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.”
“It is also well-established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure,” the plea reads.
