The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the 84th and 87th Amendment Acts, which set the population baselines for delimiting parliamentary and assembly constituencies.
A three-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed that the right to vote remains unaffected by the delimitation process. Following the bench’s suggestion to submit a representation to the competent authority, the petitioner, Nishant Khatri, chose to withdraw the plea, which the court permitted.
Chief Justice Kant clarified during the hearing that citizens are not deprived of their franchise regardless of how constituency boundaries are redrawn. He stated that any delimitation exercise, census, or similar process cannot restrict an eligible individual’s right to contest elections, provided they meet the statutory requirements under the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act.
Objections To Outdated Population Benchmarks
The petitioner, a resident of Jhajjar in Haryana, had argued that the 84th and 87th Amendments violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The challenged provisions mandate that representation in the Lok Sabha be determined by the 1971 census population, while Vidhan Sabha representation is based on the 2001 census.
Khatri contended that while the original Constitution required legislative representation to adjust according to the latest census data, the current amendments effectively exclude approximately 70 percent of Indian citizens born after 1971.
To illustrate his argument, the petitioner pointed to the rapid urbanization of regions like Gurugram, which has grown from a village of 50,000 to 60,000 residents in 1971 to a population of approximately 25 lakh today. He noted that other major urban centers, such as Noida and Mohali, did not even exist in 1971.
Vote Value And Federal Constitutionalism
Khatri argued that the demographic shifts have diluted the weight of individual votes, violating the principle of “one person, one vote, one value” as promised under the political justice clause of the Preamble.
Addressing this point, Justice Bagchi explained that while the nominal value of a vote might appear diluted when compared against the entire national population, it remains undiluted vis-a-vis individual states under the framework of federal constitutionalism. Justice Bagchi also noted that candidates are legally permitted to contest elections from any constituency, irrespective of their personal domicile.
Rather than formally dismissing the petition, the bench advised Khatri to raise his grievances with the appropriate administrative authorities.
