Supreme Court: Right to Vote Not Linked to Delimitation, Declines to Hear Plea

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the 84th and 87th amendments to the Constitution, which govern the delimitation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that the right to vote is unrelated to the process of delimitation.

“These are two different things. Right to vote has nothing to do with delimitation,” the Chief Justice remarked, as the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, refused to entertain the petition.

The PIL, filed by Nishant Khatri, argued that the amendments violate the basic structure of the Constitution by freezing the representation in the Lok Sabha based on the 1971 census, and in state Vidhan Sabhas based on the 2001 census. The petitioner contended that this distorts the principle of equal representation.

However, the court suggested that the petitioner approach the competent authority with a representation, expressing hope that it might be considered sympathetically. “We will not say we are dismissing the petition,” the CJI clarified, indicating that the matter was not being adjudicated on merits.

Delimitation is the process of redrawing the boundaries of constituencies to ensure equal representation based on population changes. The 84th Amendment (2001) extended the freeze on readjustment of Lok Sabha seats until 2026, while the 87th Amendment (2003) provided for delimitation based on the 2001 census for state assemblies.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the plea underscores its reluctance to enter a politically sensitive domain, leaving the issue to the executive and legislative branches. The decision has drawn mixed reactions, with some legal experts noting that the court’s observation separates the right to vote from the mechanics of constituency delimitation.