Delimitation exercise in Jammu & Kashmir challenged before Supreme Court

A petition before the Supreme Court has challenged notifications for the delimitation of Assembly Constituencies for the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) claiming that they are without jurisdiction [Haji Abdul Gani Khan v Union of India]..The petition filed by two Srinagar residents, Haji Abdul Gani Khan and Dr. Mohammad Ayub Mattoo has challenged the increase in the number of seats from 107 to 114 in the UT claiming that the same is ultra vires Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Indian Constitution and section 63 of the Jammu & Kashmir Re-organisation Act, 2019.It was submitted that according to a letter issued by the Delimitation Commission on July 5, 2004, the total number of existing seats in the Legislative Assemblies of all States and UTs would remain unaltered till the first census to be taken after the year 2026..The plea also pointed out that Article 170 of the Constitution provides the next delimitation to be taken up after 2026, however, the Union Territory of J&K has been singled out.“..the 1st and the 2nd Respondents are now responsible for maintaining, sustaining and working of the statutory and constitutional provisions of the Constitution of India, under the much publicized “New Order” of One Nation One Constitution,” the petition reads..It has been contended that the respondents had no power to establish a delimitation commission under Section 3 of the Delimitation Act since only the Election Commission could carry out the process of delimitation after the notification of the Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Delimitation Order, 2008.“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,” the petition stated..While relying on the case of Dr Subramanian Swamy v Director, CBI, the petitioner emphasised that conducting delimitation only for J&K was unconstitutional as it amounted to further classification."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," it was submitted..The plea has been filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat and settled by Senior Advocate Ravi Jandhyala.