Supreme Court refuses to stay delimitation in Assam but agrees to examine validity of Section 8A of RP Act

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the ongoing delimitation exercise under way in the State of Assam [Hirendranath Gohain vs Union of India and ors]..A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it would not be appropriate to interdict the process at this stage. "At this stage when delimitation has commenced having due regard to issuance of the draft proposal on June 2023, it would not be proper to interdict the process at this stage. Hence while reserving the constitutional challenge, we are not issuing any orders restraining the Election Commission to take any further steps", the top court stated in its order.However, it agreed to examine the validity of Section 8A of the Representation of People Act and issued notice to the Union and Assam governments on the petitions challenging the same. The Court said that the same merits scrutiny..The apex court was hearing petitions by Assamese public intellectual and Marxist Hiren Gohain, and Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Ajit Bhuyan, challenging the Election Commission of India's move to initiate delimitation in Assam.Delimitation is the process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies in a country, or any State with a legislative body.The draft delimitation report was released recently by the Election Commission of India.The top court was also hearing a plea filed earlier this month by 10 political leaders of Assam, which challenged the methodology adopted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to undertake the process of delimitation in the State.This petition also challenged Section 8A of the Representation of People Act, 1950, based on which the ECI claimed to be exercising its power in conducting the delimitation process..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that delimitation in Assam is being carried out with scant regard to the rules, and the delimitation commission should have been headed by a retired Supreme Court judge."Reasons for which deferment was granted is no longer in existence and that process must be a representative process. Now notification says Election Commission to complete the process. From where does the Law Ministry get this power? This is a non-representative process and it is dehors the underlying basic feature of the constitution and this is the heart of democracy. It is not even an exercise conducted by one or two members," Sibal said.The CJI in response said, "We will issue notice but we cannot stay a statutory provision. 15 years after the statute [amendment to Section 8A of the RP Act] was brought into force."Sibal said that the manner in which the existing exercise was being carried out was unheard of."What they are doing is that they are taking density of population and comparing it with other districts and the [delimitation] commission categorises districts by giving margin of 10 percent."The bench then proceeded to seek the response of the Union and Assam governments to the petitions, and said the case would be listed after the Constitution Bench hearing in the Delhi Services Ordinance matter is over.The top court is also seized of two other public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the exclusion of north-eastern States from the delimitation exercise. These were filed prior to the ECI initiating the process in Assam.