PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC AREAS AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1074, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1074 : 2023 INSC 1086
1074
CASE DETAILS
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 443 of 2017)
NOVEMBER 23, 2023
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J B PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.] 
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the scope of the Court’s 
power to issue directions for the grant of proportional representation for the 
Limboo-Tamang Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the 
Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal and Sikkim in terms of the mandate 
of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution; and directions to the Delimitation 
Commission as well as the Election Commission to eﬀ ectuate the mandate 
of Art. 332 of the Constitution, in respect of Limboo Tamang Scheduled 
Tribe, by undertaking necessary changes to the Delimitation Notiﬁ cation 
of 2006 and the Delimitation Order of 2008. 
Delimitation Act, 2002 – Delimitation Notification of 2006 
under – Petitioners case that 2006 Delimitation Notiﬁ cation did not 
accommodate the newly inducted Limboo Tamang Scheduled Tribes 
designated as such under the Amending Act of 2002 – Delimitation 
Commission if can amend the Delimitation Notiﬁ cation of 2006: 
Held: In view of Art. 329 of the Constitution, the Delimitation 
Notiﬁ cation of 2006 cannot be called into question – Any changes to the 2006 
Notiﬁ cation, could only have been made in accordance with the Delimitation 
Act – Act envisages
changes/suggestions only until the publication of the 
ﬁ nal notiﬁ cation, consequent to which, the notiﬁ cation assumes the force of 
law in supersession of any other law for the time being in force – Delimitation 
Act only provides for changes prior to the ﬁ nal notiﬁ cation – Once published, 
the Notiﬁ cation cannot be amended even by the Delimitation Commission
1075
under the 2002 Act – Thus, the Delimitation Commission cannot amend the 
Delimitation Notiﬁ cation of 2006. [Paras 56, 57]
Constitution of India – Art. 324 – Powers of the Election 
Commission under – Scope of: 
Held: Article 324 vests wide-ranging powers in the Election 
Commission – Power u/Art. 324, though plenary, is not untrammeled, but is 
conditioned by the provisions of the statutes governing the ﬁ eld – Power of 
the Election Commission u/Art. 324 is meant to supplement and not supplant 
the law made by the Parliament and must be read in harmony with the 
provisions of the statutes governing the ﬁ eld-which include the Delimitation 
Act, 2002 and the Representation of People’s Act, 1950. [Paras 58, 60]
Representation of People’s Act, 1950 – ss. 8, 10 and 10-A – Election 
Commission, if can amend the 2008 Order to the extent that they do not 
provide for reservations for members of the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled 
Tribe, to incorporate those changes: 
Held: U/s. 8, the Election Commission is to consolidate Orders made 
by the Delimitation Commission u/s. 10, 10-A and 10-B of the Delimitation 
Act – Consolidation has been carried out by the Election Commission and 
the 2008 Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order 
is an outcome of this consolidation – Once consolidated in this manner, 
s. 9 comes into operation which implies that if the Election Commission 
considers it necessary and expedient, it may consolidate with the 2008 Order 
“any
notiﬁ cation or order relating to delimitation” of constituencies issued 
u/s. 8A or under any other Central Act, and not all orders and notiﬁ cations 
whatsoever – Amending Act of 2002 which designates Limboo-Tamang 
Scheduled Tribes is enacted u/Arts.341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution 
– It does not relate to delimitation, but to designation of certain Castes and 
Tribes as Scheduled Castes and Tribes for the purpose of Art. 366 – For the 
Election Commission to act, there must be an order that relates to delimitation 
issued u/s. 8-A or under a Central Act – Neither of these conditions present 
as far as the Amending Act of 2002 is concerned, to warrant the exercise 
of power u/s. 9(1)(aa) – Thus, the RP Act does not envisage a duty vested 
in the Election Commission to amend the 2008 Order to include the 2002 
Amending Act. [Paras 61, 63, 67-70]
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI]
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Representation of People’s Act - s. 9 - Delimitation Act, 2002 – s. 
11 – Non-inclusion of the Limboo Tamang Scheduled Tribes in the 2006 
Notiﬁ cation and 2008 Order :
Held: Non-inclusion of Scheduled Tribes in the two Orders is 
attributable to the fact that the Constitution itself mandates the delimitation 
exercise to be carried out in accordance with the ﬁ gures of the 2001 census 
alone and that the subsequent changes to the ST Order have not been 
accordingly assimilated with the 2001 ﬁ gures – Delimitation exercise 
undertaken in 2006 could not account for the Amending Act of 2002 – Thus, 
the non-inclusion of the Limboo Tamang STs is not attributable to a mere 
error arising out of an inadvertent slip or omission – Non-inclusion arises 
due to a lack of an enabling statutory provision which would accommodate 
post-census changes to the delimitation exercise – Omission envisaged by 
s.9 and s.11 refers to errors or omissions of a ministerial nature – Entirety 
of the ambit of clause (a) of s. 11(1) is to allow the Election Commission 
to correct printing mistakes and inadvertent slips or omissions that result 
in error – This would not extend to making substantial modiﬁ cations in 
the delimitation which was made by the Delimitation Commission in the 
exercise of its statutory power. [Paras 74, 75, 77-79]
Constitution of India – Art. 330, 332, 324, 371F – Power of the 
Court to grant proportional representation – Scope of
– Directions 
sought for the grant of proportional representation for Limboo-Tamang 
Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the Legislative 
Assemblies of West Bengal and Sikkim in terms of the mandate of Arts. 
330 and 332: 
Held: s. 8 of the Delimitation Act, mandates that the exercise of the 
Delimitation Commission’s powers in determining reserved seats be in 
accordance with the 2001 census having regard to the provisions of Arts 
81, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution – Delimitation Act or the RP Act 
do not require consideration of subsequent changes to the composition 
of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes Orders in determining the 
reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes – Ordinances was promulgated creating 
certain provisions expressly enabling readjustment of seats by factoring in 
inclusions/exclusions to the Scheduled Tribe lists – However, legislative 
eﬀ orts in the form of the Ordinances and Bills, did not eventually result
1077
in the creation of a legislative framework creating a power to enable the 
Delimitation Commission and/or the Election Commission to incorporate 
changes dehors the 2001 census to the Delimitation Orders – Delimitation 
Act and the Representation of the People Act, as they exist presently, do 
not create such a legislative framework – For the Court to direct that in 
addition to the reservation which has been made in s. 7(1A), Parliament 
must necessarily legislate in a particular manner to provide proportional 
representation to all the other communities forming a part of the Scheduled 
Tribes, would be to trench into the legislative domain – No mandamus 
can be issued to Parliament as a legislating body to enact a legislation or 
to legislate in a particular manner – These are matters to be factored in by 
Parliament, at its discretion – Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly 
Constituencies Order 2008 forms the basis of the First and Second Schedules 
to the RP Act – Delimitation Commission completed its exercise almost 
ﬁ fteen years ago – Nearly ﬁ fty-one communities were added after 2001 to 
the list of Scheduled Tribes until the last census took place in 2011 – Union 
Government to take recourse to the powers under the Delimitation Act 2002 
for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of Arts 330 and 332 are duly 
implemented. [Paras 96-98, 100, 101, 103, 105]
Constitution of India – Art. 371F – Special provisions with respect 
to the State of Sikkim –
Explained and elucidated. [Paras 82-93]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Virendra Pratap and Another vs Union of India and Others (2012) 11 
SCC 764; Meghraj Kothari vs Delimitation Commission and Ors, 1966 SCC 
OnLine SC 12 paras 10, 11; Shambhu Prasad Sharma vs Charandar Mahant 
2023 11 SCC 390; SS Dhanoa vs Union of India [1991] 3 SCR 159: AIR 
1991 SC 1745; Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner 
AIR 1978 SC 851; Oﬃ  cial Liquidator vs Dharti Dhan [1978] 2 SCR 272: 
AIR 1977 SC 740; Anand Singh Kunwar v. Election Commission of India 
[2007] 8 SCR 909: (2007) 7 SCC 234; Vivek Krishna vs Union of India 2022 
SCC OnLine SC 1040; John Paily vs State of Kerala 2021 SCC OnLine 
SC 3405 – referred to. 
Justice GP Singh, Interpretation of Statutes, 15th Edition pg 365 para 
5.6.11 – referred to.
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI]
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No.443 of 
2017.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
With
Writ Petition (c) No.187 of 2019.
Appearances:
Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ms. Pritika 
Kumar, Vishesh Sharma, Ms. Mithu Jain, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Basava Prabhu 
S Patil, AG/Sr. Adv., Rakesh Dwivedi, Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Advs., Amit 
Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Pallavi Barua, Ms. Aparna Singh, Chanchal 
Kumar Ganguli, Shashwat Panda, Raghvendra Kumar, Samarth Kashyap, 
Devvrat Singh, Shailesh Madiyal, Kanu Agarwal, B K Satija, Ms. Vanshaja 
Shukla, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
Contents*
Constitutional Framework .................................................................3
Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 ................................................8
Delimitation Act, 2002 ....................................................................11
Factual Context ...............................................................................14
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners ........................................22
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents .....................................24
Delimitation Notiﬁ cation of 2006 and the Delimitation Order 
of
2008 ............................................................................................26
* 
Ed. Note: Pagination is as per the original judgment.
1079
Issues ...............................................................................................29
Analysis: ..........................................................................................30
Whether Delimitation Commission can amend the 2006 
Notiﬁ cation under the Delimitation Act ..........................................30
Whether the Election Commission can Amend the 2008 
Order to incorporate those changes ............................................33
The Scope of powers of the Election Commission under 
Article 324, Constitution of India:..........................................33
Scope of Powers of the Election Commission under RP Act. ...34
Section 9, RP Act and Section 11, Delimitation Act ..............38
Proportional Representation .......................................................41
Conclusion .......................................................................................52
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has 
been invoked in two petitions. The ﬁ rst of those petitions seeks a direction 
for the grant of proportional representation for the Scheduled Tribes in the 
House of the People and in the Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal and 
Sikkim in terms of the mandate of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution. 
2. The second petition seeks more specifically, a direction for 
upholding the constitutional rights of the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled 
Tribe to reservation of seats in the Sikkim
Legislative Assembly. It seeks 
directions to amend/strike down the Notification of the Delimitation 
Commission dated 4 September 2006 and the Delimitation of Parliamentary 
and Assembly Constituencies Order 20081 to the extent that they do not 
provide for reservations for members of the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled 
Tribe. It additionally seeks directions to the eﬀ ect that Section 7(1A) of the 
Representation of People’s Act2 is ultra vires the Constitution for the same 
reason. The petitioner seeks directions to the Delimitation Commission as 
1 
“2006 Notiﬁ cation” and “2008 Order” 
2 
“RP Act” 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1080 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
well as the Election Commission to eﬀ ectuate the mandate of Article 332 
of the Constitution, in respect of Limboo Tamang Scheduled Tribe, by 
undertaking necessary changes to the 2006 Notiﬁ cation and the 2008 Order. 
Constitutional Framework
3. Article 342 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify 
the tribal communities of the country which will be designated as Scheduled 
Tribes. Communities so designated by the President in the Scheduled Tribes 
Order or later added by amendment are treated as Scheduled Tribes for the 
purpose of the Constitution, according to Article 366 (25). 
4. Article 330 of the Constitution provides for reservation of seats 
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People. 
Clause (2) of Article 330 states that the number of seats reserved in a 
State or Union Territory for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes 
under clause (1) “shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to 
the total number of seats allotted to that State or Union Territory in the 
House of People as the population of Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes 
in that State or Union Territory bears to the total population of the State 
or Union Territory”.
5. Similar provisions are contained in clause (3) of Article 3323 which 
mandates the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
in the Legislative Assemblies of the States. Clause (3) stipulates that the 
number of
seats so reserved for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes 
shall be in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled 
Tribes in the State to the total population of the State.
3 
332. Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative 
Assemblies of the States.—(1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and 
the Scheduled Tribes, 8 [except the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of 
Assam], in the Legislative Assembly of every State.
…
(3)  The number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in 
the Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, 
the same proportion to the total number of seats in the Assembly as the population of 
the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or part of the 
State, as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total 
population of the State.
1081
6. Three facets of Article 330 and Article 332 need to be noticed at 
the forefront. First, Articles 330(1) and 332(1) contain a mandate which 
is evident from the use of the expression “seats shall be reserved” for the 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and 
in the Legislative Assembly of every State. Second, the number of seats 
required to be reserved is stipulated in clause (2) of Article 330 and clause 
(3) of Article 332. The same principle is adopted by both these provisions, 
requiring that the number of seats so reserved shall “as nearly as may be” 
bear the same proportion to the total number of seats allotted to the State in 
the House of the People and in the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, 
as the proportion of the population of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled 
Tribes in respect of which seats are so reserved to the total population of 
the State. The implementation of the constitutional mandate for reserving 
seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the 
People and in the State Legislative Assemblies is governed by a statutory 
regime which, it will be necessary to advert to in due course. Third, Articles 
330 and 332, do not provide for reservations for any particular Scheduled 
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 
7. Article 814 of the Constitution provides for the composition of the 
4 
81. Composition of the House of the People.—(1) Subject to the provisions of article 
331, the House of
the People shall consist of— 
(a) not more than ﬁ ve hundred and thirty members chosen by direct election from 
territorial constituencies in the States, and 
(b) not more than twenty members to represent the Union territories, chosen in such 
manner as Parliament may by law provide. 
(2)  For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (1),— 
(a) there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People 
in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State 
is, so far as practicable, the same for all States; and 
(b) each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the 
ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted 
to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State: 
Provided that the provisions of sub-clause (a)of this clause shall not be applicable for 
the purpose of allotment of seats in the House of the People to any State so long as the 
population of that State does not exceed six millions. 
(3)  In this article, the expression ―populationǁ means the population as ascertained 
at the last preceding census of which the relevant ﬁ gures have been published: 
Provided that the reference in this clause to the last preceding census of which the 
relevant ﬁ gures have been published shall, until the relevant ﬁ gures for the ﬁ rst census 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
House of the People. Under Article 81(2)(a), there shall be allotted to each 
State a number of seats in the House of the People in such a manner that 
the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as 
practicable, the same for all States. Article 825 provides for the readjustment 
of the seats after each census. It provides that upon the completion of each 
census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and 
the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted 
by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine. 
For the purposes of Article 81, clause (3) provides that the expression 
“population” means the population as ascertained at the last preceding 
census of which the relevant ﬁ gures have been published. However, until 
the relevant ﬁ gures for the ﬁ rst census taken after 2026 have been published, 
this shall be construed, for the purpose of sub-clause (a) of clause (2), and 
its proviso, as a reference to the 1971 census. Regarding the division of each 
State into territorial constituencies, it has been provided that the reference 
would be to the 2001 census. Analogous provisions are contained in the 
proviso to Article 82. Article 170 contains provisions for the composition 
of the Legislative Assemblies.
taken after the year 2026 have been published, be construed,— 
(i) for the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (2)
and the proviso to that clause, as 
a reference to the 1971 census; and 
(ii) for the purposes of sub-clause (b)of clause (2) as a reference to the 2001 census. 
5 
82. Readjustment after each census.—Upon the completion of each census, the 
allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each 
State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such 
manner as Parliament may by law determine: 
Provided that such readjustment shall not aﬀ ect representation in the House of the 
People until the dissolution of the then existing House: 
Provided further that such readjustment shall take eﬀ ect from such date as the President 
may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes eﬀ ect, any election to the 
House may be held on the basis of the territorial constituencies existing before such 
readjustment: 
Provided also that until the relevant ﬁ gures for the ﬁ rst census taken after the year 
2026 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust— 
(i) the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States as readjusted on 
the basis of the 1971 census; and 
(ii) the division of each State into territorial constituencies as may be readjusted on 
the basis of the 2001]census, 
under this article.
1083
8. Article 327 entrusts Parliament with the power to make provisions 
with respect to elections to either House of Parliament or to the Legislature 
of a State. Article 329 provides for a bar to the interference by courts in 
electoral matters including the validity of any law relating to the delimitation 
of constituencies or the allotment of seats to constituencies made under 
Articles 327 or 328. 
9. Entry 72 of the Union List to the Seventh Schedule deals with 
elections to Parliament and to the legislatures of States among other Subjects. 
The legislative domain consequently lies exclusively with Parliament in 
terms of Articles 245 and 246 read with Entry 72 of List I.
10. For the State of Sikkim, in addition to the constitutional provisions 
already noted, a special provision is contained in Article 371F(f) in terms 
of which, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution:
“(f) Parliament may, for the purpose of protecting the rights and 
interests of the diﬀ erent sections of the population of Sikkim make 
provision for the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the 
State of Sikkim which may be ﬁ lled by candidates belonging to such 
sections and for the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies from 
which candidates belonging to such sections alone may stand for 
election to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Sikkim;”
Representation of Peoples Act, 1950
11. Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1950 provides 
for the allocation of
seats to the States in the House of the People and the 
number of seats which are reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the 
Scheduled Tribes as indicated in the First Schedule. Section 7(1), inter alia, 
provides that the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each 
State speciﬁ ed in the Second Schedule by direct election from Assembly 
constituencies and the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and 
for the Scheduled Tribes of the State, shall be as indicated in that Schedule. 
As regards the State of Sikkim, speciﬁ c provisions are contained in sub-
section (1A) of Section 7 which reads as follows:
“7. Total number of seats in Legislative Assemblies and assembly 
constituencies. —
… 
… 
...
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1084 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the 
total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of 
Sikkim, to be constituted at any time after the commencement of the 
Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1980 (8 of 1980), 
to be ﬁ lled by persons chosen by direct election from assembly 
constituencies shall be thirty-two, of which – 
(a) 
twelve seats shall be reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha 
origin; 
(b) two seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes of that State; 
and 
(c) 
one seat shall be reserved for the Sanghas referred to in section 
25A.
Explanation—In this sub-section “Bhutia” includes Chumbipa, 
Dopthapa, Dukpa, Kagatey, Sherpa, Tibetan, Tromopa and Yolmo.”
12. Sub-section (1A) indicates that the total number of seats in the 
Legislative Assembly of Sikkim shall be thirty-two. Of these, twelve seats 
are reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha origin; two seats for the 
Scheduled Castes; and one seat for the Sanghas as referred to in Section 
25A. Likewise, a speciﬁ c provision in relation to Sikkim is contained in 
Section 7A in the following terms:
“7A. Total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim 
and assembly constituencies.– (1) Notwithstanding anything 
contained in section 7, in the Legislative Assembly of the State of 
Sikkim [deemed under the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 
1975 to be the Legislative Assembly of that State
duly constituted], the 
total number of seats to be ﬁ lled by persons chosen by direct election 
from assembly constituencies shall be 32.
(2) Every Assembly constituency referred to in sub-section (1) shall 
be a single-member constituency.
(3) In the Legislative Assembly so deemed to be duly constituted, 
the extent of each constituency and the reservation of seats shall 
be as provided for immediately before the commencement of the 
Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975.”
1085
13. The First Schedule to the RP Act provides for the allocation of 
seats in the House of the People. The allocation of seats is indicated in two 
segments of the First Schedule: 
(i)  The number of seats in the House as constituted in 2004 on the 
basis of the Delimitation Order of 1976; and
(ii)  The number of seats in the House as subsequently constituted 
on the basis of the Delimitation Order 2008.
14. The total number of seats in the House of the People allocated 
to West Bengal is 42, of which 10 are reserved for the Scheduled Castes 
and 2 for the Scheduled Tribes. Sikkim has a lone seat in the House of the 
People which is unreserved. The Second Schedule of the RP Act prescribes 
the total number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies, again bifurcating 
the determination on the basis of the Delimitation Order of 1976 and the 
Delimitation Order of 2008. For the State of West Bengal, the Legislative 
Assembly consists of 294 seats of which 68 are reserved for the Scheduled 
Castes and 16 for the Scheduled Tribes under the Delimitation Order of 2008. 
For the State of Sikkim, the Legislative Assembly consists of 32 seats of 
which two are reserved for the Scheduled Castes and 13 for the Scheduled 
Tribes. In terms of the provisions of Section 7(1)(a), the Second Schedule 
indicates that 13 seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes will comprise one 
seat for Sanghas and 12 seats for the Sikkimese of Bhutia Lepcha origin. 
Delimitation Act, 2002
15. Parliament
enacted the Delimitation Act 2002 (Act 33 of 2002) 
which, came into force on 3 June 2002. The Act provides for the constitution 
of the Delimitation Commission. The Delimitation Commission is required 
to readjust the division of each state into territorial constituencies for the 
purpose of elections to the House of the People and to the State Legislative 
Assemblies.
16. Section 8 provides for readjustment of the number of seats in the 
following terms:
“8. Readjustment of number of seals.—The Commission shall, 
having regard to the provisions of articles 81, 170, 330 and 332, 
…, determine,—
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
(a) on the basis of the census ﬁ gures as ascertained at the census held 
in the year 1971 and subject to the provisions of section 4, the number 
of seats in the House of the People to be allocated to each State and 
determine on the basis of the census ﬁ gures as ascertained at the census 
held in the year 2001 the number of seats, if any, to be reserved for 
the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of the State; and 
(b) on the basis of the census ﬁ gures as ascertained at the census held 
in the year 1971 and subject to the provisions of section 4, the total 
number of seats to be assigned to the Legislative Assembly of each 
State and determine on the basis of the census ﬁ gures as ascertained 
at the census held in the year 2001 the number of seats, if any, to be 
reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for the Scheduled Tribes of 
the State: 
…”
17. In terms of Section 8, the Delimitation Commission is empowered 
to determine the seats to be allocated to each State in the House of the 
People and in the Legislative Assemblies of every State on the basis of the 
census ﬁ gures of 1971. The Delimitation Commission is also empowered 
to determine the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the census of 2001.
Section 9 of the Delimitation Act provides for distribution of these 
seats allocated to each state in the House of the People. Section 10 of the 
Act pertains to
the publication of orders by the Delimitation Commission in 
accordance with the exercise of its powers under Sections 8 and 9. Section 
10(4) speciﬁ cally states that the orders so published under Section 10 shall 
apply to every election to the House of the People and to the Assembly if 
such election is held after the publication of such orders. The orders apply 
in supersession of all other provisions pertaining to representation and 
delimitation contained in any other law, order or notiﬁ cation. Section 10(4) 
provides as follows: 
“(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the readjustment of 
representation of the several territorial constituencies in the House of 
the People or in the Legislative Assembly of a State and the delimitation 
of those constituencies provided for in any such order shall apply
1087
in relation to every election to the House or to the Assembly, as the 
case may be, held after the publication in the Gazette of India of that 
order and shall so apply in supersession of the provisions relating 
to such representation and delimitation contained in any other 
law for the time being in force or any order or notiﬁ cation issued 
under such law in so far as such representation and delimitation 
are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act :…”
(emphasis added)
18. Section 11 empowers the Election Commission to maintain 
delimitation orders up-to-date. It provides as follows : 
“11. Power to maintain delimitation orders up-to-date.—(1) The 
Election Commission may, from time to time, by notiﬁ cation in the 
Gazette of lndia and in the Oﬃ  cial Gazette of the State concerned,—
(a) 
correct any printing mistake in any of the orders made by the 
Commission under Section 9 or any error arising therein from 
an inadvertent slip or omission; and
(b) where the boundaries or name of any district or any territorial 
division mentioned in any of the said orders are or is altered, make 
such amendments as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for 
bringing the orders up-to-date, so, however, that the boundaries 
or areas or extent of any constituency shall not be changed by 
any such notiﬁ cation.
(2) Every notiﬁ cation under this section shall be laid, as soon as may 
be after it is issued, before the House of the People and the Legislative 
Assembly of the
State concerned.”
19. The position of the law relating to delimitation can be summarized 
as follows: 
1. 
The Delimitation Commission is required to allocate seats 
to every State in the House of the People and the Legislative 
Assembly on the basis of the Census of 1971. The Commission 
has to determine the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes based on the 2001 census. This exercise is 
required to be undertaken with due regard to the provisions of 
Articles 81, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India;and
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1088 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
2. 
This provision is in line with the Explanation to Article 330 of 
the Constitution. The Explanation stipulates that the reference to 
‘population’ in Article 330 and Article 332 is to be construed as 
the population ascertained at the last preceding census of which 
the relevant ﬁ gures have been published. However, the proviso 
states that the reference to the ‘last preceding census’ in the 
Explanation to Article 330 would be construed as a reference to 
the 2001 census until relevant ﬁ gures for the ﬁ rst census taken 
after 2026 have been published. 
Factual Context
20. The 2001 census figures indicate that the Scheduled Tribes 
constitute 5.50% and 20.60% of the total population of the States of West 
Bengal and Sikkim respectively. The ﬁ gures are stated below: 
States
Total Population
Population of the 
Scheduled Tribes
Scheduled Tribes as 
a percentage of the 
total population
West Bengal
8,01,76,197
44,06,794
5.50%
Sikkim
5,40,851
1,11,405
20.60%
21. The Union Government constituted the Delimitation Commission 
under the Delimitation Act 2002. The Commission was undertaking the 
exercise of delimiting Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies when 
Parliament enacted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders 
(Amendment) Act 20026. The Act came into eﬀ ect on 7 January 2003. 
Section 4 of the amending Act read with the Second Schedule appended to 
it, amended, inter alia, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order 1950 and 
the Constitution (Sikkim) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1978. The eﬀ ect of the 
Amending Act of 2002 was that Limboo and Tamang communities stood 
included in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the States of West Bengal and 
Sikkim with eﬀ ect from 7 January 2003. 
22. Upon the completion of the delimitation exercise, on 26 November 
2008, the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order 
2008 was issued by the Election Commission. The Delimitation Order 
6 
Amending Act of 2002.
1089
stipulated the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the state legislative 
assemblies as well as the seats reserved in the House of the People, out of 
the total seats allocated to states. For the States of West Bengal and Sikkim, 
this is indicated in the following tabulation :
State
Seats reserved for 
Scheduled Tribes in the 
House of the People, 
out of the total seats 
reserved for the State.
Seats reserved for 
Scheduled Tribes in the 
State Legislative Assembly 
out of the total seats in the 
Assembly.
West Bengal 2 out of 42 
16 out of 294
Sikkim
0 out of 1 
13 out of 327
23. Though a demand was made by certain castes and tribes designated 
as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation in the House of 
the People and State Legislative Assemblies by taking into account the 
additional population as a result of the Amending Act of 2002, the exercise 
was never actually carried out. 
24. In carrying out the delimitation exercise under Section 9 of the 
Delimitation Act, Section 9(2) provides that the Commission shall publish 
the delimitation proposals, specify the date after which the proposals shall 
be considered by it and consider the objections received before ﬁ nally 
determining the delimitation of constituencies. Accordingly, in 2005, the 
Delimitation proposal for Assembly constituencies for the State of Sikkim 
was published. The number of seats to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes 
was to be determined on the basis of the 2001 census and the
proposal did 
not contain seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of Sikkim. It was stated 
that unlike clauses 3A and 3B of Article 332, which enables the Delimitation 
Commission to deviate from the “generalized procedure as contained in the 
Delimitation Act, 2002 read with Delimitation (Amendment) Act 2003” for 
certain states, there is no provision which allows a similar deviation from 
the generic provisions of the Delimitation Act in order to accommodate the 
newly inducted Scheduled Tribes. Various representations were made to the 
Delimitation Commission on the ground that the 2001 census alone did not 
7 
Out of the 13 seats, 12 were reserved for Sikkimese of Bhutia-Lepcha Origin and 1 for 
the Sanghas.
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
account for the then newly designated Limboo-Tamang Scheduled Tribes 
for reservations in the constituencies. 
25. However, despite the objections, the 2006 Delimitation Notiﬁ cation 
was published without accounting for the Scheduled Tribes designated as 
such under the Amending Act of 2002. The 2006 Notiﬁ cation formed the 
basis of the 2008 Order issued by the Election Commission under RP Act 
1950. 
26. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2006 Delimitation Notiﬁ cation 
was, to the extent that it did not accommodate the newly inducted Limboo 
Tamang Tribes, not corrected by the Election Commission, in the exercise 
of its powers under Section 11 of the Delimitation Act. Thus, according 
to the petitioners, the 2008 Order published by the Election Commission 
under the Representation of People Act 1950, which was a consolidation 
of the Orders issued by the Delimitation Commission, was defective to the 
extent that it did not account for the Amending Act of 2002. Its defects, the 
petitioners claim, were not duly cured by the Election Commission under 
Section 9(1)(aa) of the 1950 Act. 
27. The petitioners rely on the directions of this Court in the decision in 
Virendra Pratap and Another vs Union of India and Others. A writ petition 
was instituted seeking directions against the Election Commission to take 
steps for proper representation by identifying constituencies for reservations 
of the Scheduled Tribes in the
Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections, in 
accordance with proportional representation in terms of Article 330 of the 
Constitution.8 While agreeing that the Scheduled Tribes had the right to 
proportional representation under Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, 
this Court directed the Election Commission to consider the case of the 
Scheduled Tribes and take appropriate steps to ensure their representation 
in the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly “in the State”. The 
Court clariﬁ ed that while the Election Commission was not being directed 
to complete the exercise before the upcoming assembly elections, it was at 
liberty to complete the exercise, without disturbing the election schedule:
“8. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the 
Election Commission of India, to consider the case of the Scheduled 
8 
(2012) 11 SCC 764.
1091
Tribes, as indicated in the writ petition and to take appropriate 
steps for their representation in the Lower Houses, both in the 
Parliament, as well as in the State Assemblies in accordance with 
the provisions of the Constitution. The petitioners will be at liberty 
to supply necessary details of the ﬁ gures indicated to the Election 
Commission of India and the Election Commission may itself also 
obtain ﬁ gures from the Registrar General, as suggested by the learned 
Attorney General and, thereafter, proceed to take steps in accordance 
with the provisions of the Constitution for due representation of the 
Scheduled Tribes population.”
(emphasis added). 
28. The 2008 Delimitation Order came up for the consideration of this 
Court in 2012 in its decision in the case of Virendra Pratap (supra) where 
the Election Commission as well as the then Attorney General had taken 
the position that they would carry out the relevant exercise by considering 
the ﬁ gures de hors the 2001 census. The Commission was then directed to 
undertake the relevant steps to ensure proportional representation of the 
tribes, in accordance with the Constitution. 
29. The Central Government appears to have taken the position (as 
the Election Commission informs the Court on aﬃ  davit) that the beneﬁ t 
of reservation should be extended to all those castes and tribes which 
were designated by the Amending Act of 2002 and thereafter until 31 May 
2012. A succession of three Ordinances came to
be promulgated by the 
President under Article 123 of the Constitution. The ﬁ rst of them called 
the Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Ordinance 2013 
was promulgated on 30 January 2013, inter alia, empowering the Election 
Commission to readjust the representation of SCs/STs in Parliamentary and 
Assembly constituencies in all States and Union Territories on the basis of 
the revised population of 2001 estimated by the Registrar General by taking 
into account the relevant Acts which were enacted by Parliament between 
2002 and 31 May 2012. Though the Ordinance was sought to be replaced 
by an Act of Parliament, the Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing 
Committee which, in its Report dated 5 May 2013, recommended the passage 
of the Bill. The Bill was,however, not converted into law.
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
30. A second Ordinance was issued on 5 June 2013. The Ordinance 
lapsed. A third Ordinance was promulgated on 27 September 2013. 
31. In pursuance of the third Ordinance, the Registrar General of 
India completed the exercise of estimating the revised population ﬁ gures 
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by taking into account changes 
that were made under Article 342 of the Constitution by the inclusion of 
additional castes and tribes up to 31 May 2012. The Election Commission 
made necessary adjustments only in respect of the State of Uttar Pradesh, 
while the provisions of the third Ordinance were in force. However, the 
Election Commission has stated in its counter that in terms of the revised 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’ population ﬁ gures which were 
ascertained by the Registrar General of India in 2013, an increase of one seat 
each for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes was found in respect 
of West Bengal while no increase was found for seats for Scheduled 
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Sikkim. This, the Court is informed, was 
as a result of the provisions of Section 7A of the RP Act. 
32. The third Ordinance which was promulgated by the President in 
2013 lapsed. No law has been enacted by Parliament either in terms of the 
provisions of the Ordinance or bearing on the subject matter of the dispute 
in the present case. However, in 2018, the Union Ministry of Home Aﬀ airs9 
initiated an
exercise to increase the seats in the Legislative Assembly from 
32 to 40 so as to provide for the reservation of seats for the Limboo and 
Tamang Tribes. On 30 July 2005, a communication was addressed by MHA 
to the Chief Secretary of the State of Sikkim, proposing that the State could 
choose one of three options for implementing it:
“(i) The reservation for Limboos and Tamang may be considered out of 
the 17 un-reserved Assembly seats at present on the basis of proportion 
of their population to the total population, without increasing the size 
of the State Legislature;
(ii) The strength of State Legislature may be increased to 40 and 
reservation for Limboos and Tamangs may be considered out of 25 
seats (17 un-reserved at present + 8 additional seats) subject to the 
“MHA”
1093
condition that in the event of any new communities being declared as 
ST in future they may also be accommodated within the overall size of 
40 without having to request further increase in the number of seats;
(iii) The strength ·of the State Legislature may be increased to 60 to 
bring at par with other States and in conformity with Article 171(1) 
and reservation for Limboos and Tamangs may be considered in 
proportion to their population out of the 45 seats (17 un-reserved 
seats + 28 additional seats) subject to the condition that in the event 
of any new communities being declared as ST in future they will also 
be accommodated within the over all strength of 60 without having to 
ask for any further increase in the strength of the Assembly.”
33. The Chief Secretary of the State of Sikkim responded to the 
communication stating that the second option was acceptable in terms of 
which the seats in the Sikkim State Legislative Assembly would be increased 
from 32 to 40 so as to allow reservation for Limboo and Tamang Scheduled 
Tribes. On 4 April 2018, MHA again, initiated the exercise to increase the 
seats in the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim from 32 to 40 and to provide 
reservation for Limboo and Tamang Tribes while seeking the views of the 
Election Commission. The Election Commission responded on 4 April 
2018. Thereafter, MHA addressed a communication to the Secretary of 
the Legislative Department in the Ministry of Law and Justice intimating 
that a
“revised draft cabinet note and draft RPA (Amendment) Bill 2018 
had been seen and approved by the Honourable Home Minister of India”. 
No further steps seem to have taken place thereafter after the exchange of 
these communications. 
34. Counter aﬃ  davits have been ﬁ led in these proceedings by the 
Election Commission of India, the State of West Bengal and the State of 
Sikkim. The Election Commission has stated that presently, it has no power 
to make any changes in the delimitation orders passed by the Delimitation 
Commission in the States of West Bengal and Sikkim. According to the 
Election Commission, readjustment of seats requires an enabling provision 
in the law empowering it to undertake such an exercise. No action has 
been taken in the matter by MHA or by the Union and hence according 
to the Election Commission, it is unable to proceed further. The Election 
Commission also states that readjustment of seats would involve necessary 
amendments to the RP Act, among other legislation.
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1094 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
35. The State of West Bengal, has stated that in terms of the census of 
2011, 52,96,953 persons belong to the Scheduled Tribes representing 5.8% 
of the total population and consequently, 6% of the seats in the Legislative 
Assembly are reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Sixteen seats are stated to 
have been reserved in the Legislative Assembly and two seats in the Lok 
Sabha for the Scheduled Tribes. On 15 February 2006, a notiﬁ cation was 
published by the Delimitation Commission allotting 42 seats in the House 
of People and 294 in the Legislative Assembly to the State of West Bengal. 
The State of West Bengal has also stated that the delimitation notiﬁ cation 
was based on the census of 2001 and any exercise of delimitation would 
have to take place within the ambit and purview of Delimitation Act 2002.
36. The State of Sikkim has stated that the Government of Sikkim has 
been repeatedly requesting the Government of India to take immediate steps 
to provide reservation to the Limboo and Tamang Tribes in the Legislative 
Assembly of the State. The correspondence between the State and Union 
Governments, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs, has however, not led 
to the implementation of the proposal to increase the seats in the legislative 
assembly of the State. 
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
37. We have heard Mr Prashant Bhushan and Ms Pritika Kumar, 
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
38. The
petitioners are aggrieved by the non-representation of the 
Limboo and Tamang Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and the 
State Legislative Assemblies, in accordance with Articles 330 and 332 of 
the Constitution. The provisions stipulate that the Scheduled Tribes will 
be given reservations in the House of the People as well as the Legislative 
Assemblies, and that this reservation shall, as nearly as may be, proportionate 
to their population to the total population of the state. They challenge the 
2006 Notiﬁ cation and 2008 Order on the ground that the Delimitation 
Commission and the Election Commission have overlooked the Amending 
Act of 2002 which included, inter alia, these two tribes to the Scheduled 
Tribes’ List. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the two orders, are 
defective and an election notiﬁ cation based on these orders, would also be 
in violation of Articles 330 and 332.
1095
39. The primary submission urged on their behalf is that unlike Article 
15 of the Constitution, which contains enabling provisions for reservation, 
Articles 330 and 332 contain a mandate for reservation. Moreover, it has 
been submitted that the mandate is that proportional reservation has to be 
provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes based on the ratio 
which their population bears to the total population of the State. Hence, it 
has been urged: 
• 
First, that there is a constitutional mandate and the entitlement 
of the Limboo and Tamang communities as Schedules Tribes 
which stems from the Amending Act of 2002, whereby they were 
designated as Scheduled Tribes. Accordingly, it is the plain duty 
of the Union Government and the Election Commission to act 
in pursuance of their statutory and constitutional powers. To the 
extent that the 2006 Notiﬁ cation and the 2008 Order and Section 
7(1A) of the RP Act do not account for the Limboo and Tamang 
Scheduled Tribes, they violate this mandate;
• 
Second, the Election Commission is empowered, under Article 
324 of the Constitution, to issue directions for the readjustment 
of seats to reserved constituencies;
• 
Third, the provisions of Section 11 of the Delimitation Act 
and Section 9(1)(aa) of the Representation of People Act 1950 
suﬃ  ciently empower the Election Commission to correct any 
omission. Such an omission, it has been urged, took place when 
the Delimitation Commission did not include any
seats in the 
reservation list for Limboo and Tamang communities;and
• 
Fourth, the judgment of this Court in Virendra Pratap’s case 
(supra), which was rendered on 10 January 2012, was not 
conﬁ ned only to the Respondents in that case, namely, the State of 
Uttar Pradesh. Just asin the manner that the Election Commission 
implemented the judgment for the State of Uttar Pradesh, it ought 
to have done the same thing for other communities designated 
as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes since 2002. 
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
40. On the other hand, it has been urged by both Mr KM Natraj, 
Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India and 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Mr Amit Sharma, counsel appearing on behalf of the Election Commission 
that: 
• 
First, the exercise of delimitation has to be carried out within 
the framework of the Delimitation Act 2002. 
• 
Second, the legislative framework for reservation of seats 
requires an amendment to the RP Act in order to provide for 
such reservations. Such an amendment is exclusively the 
mandate of Parliament, and not the Election Commission. In 
the absence of an enabling legislation, the powers under Article 
324 alone, would not warrant such an exercise at the instance 
of the Election Commission. In fact, in order to create such an 
enabling provision, three Ordinances were promulgated in 2013, 
which eventually lapsed and the power could not be granted to 
the Election Commission. 
• 
Third, the power under Section 11 of the Delimitation Act 2002 
cannot be extended to mean the power to carry out readjustment 
of seats or to provide for reservations for additional castes and 
tribes in the manner which the petitioners suggest. 
41. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi and Mr Ashok Panda, senior counsel appearing 
on behalf of the State of West Bengal have broadly adopted the submissions 
of the Election Commission regarding the need for an enabling statutory 
amendment. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi has highlighted that the provisions of the 
Constitution do not earmark reservations for each SC/ST separately but 
provide for reservations for the SC/STs as a whole in
relation to each state 
in the House of People and legislative assemblies. 
42. Against this backdrop, the petitioners seek directions to give 
eﬀ ect to the constitutional right of the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled Tribes. 
They seek directions to the Delimitation Commission to amend its 2006 
Notiﬁ cation to that extent; and directions to the Election Commission, to 
incorporate the amendments to its 2008 Order; and to make corrections to 
the Delimitation Commission’s 2006 Notiﬁ cation and the 2008 Order. As 
they stand, the 2006 Notiﬁ cation and 2008 Order, are based on the 2001 
census and do not incorporate the subsequent additions/adjustments made 
to the Scheduled Tribes Orders whereby, inter alia, the Limboo Tamang 
Tribes were designated as Scheduled Tribes.
1097
Delimitation Notiﬁ cation of 2006 and the Delimitation Order of 
2008
43. Entry 72 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule deals with 
elections to Parliament and the State Legislatures. Article 327 of the 
Constitution empowers Parliament to make provisions by law with respect 
to all matters relating to or in connection with elections to either House of 
Parliament or to the legislatures of the States including:
(i) 
Preparation of electoral rolls;
(ii)  Delimitation of constituencies; and
(iii)  All matters necessary for securing the due constitution of the 
House. 
44. The Delimitation Act 2002 is an outcome of the exercise of the 
power to legislate on the subject of delimitation. The provisions of the 
Act which have been noted earlier, indicate that the statutory function of 
the Delimitation Commission includes specifying reserved seats in the 
Legislative Assemblies for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
45. The Election Commission has a broad mandate in terms of Article 
324 in regard to the superintendence, direction and control of elections. 
Article 324(1) provides for the superintendence, direction and control of 
the preparation of the electoral rolls and stipulates that the conduct of all 
elections to Parliament and to the State Legislature shall be vested in the 
Election Commission. The Constitution has drawn a careful balance between 
the broader powers of the Election Commission over the superintendence, 
direction and control of
electoral rolls and the conduct of elections on the one 
hand, and the legislative power of Parliament under Article 245 and Article 
246 on the other hand read with Entry 72 of the Union List in the Seventh 
Schedule. The power of Parliament in its legislative domain is coupled with 
its constitutional function under Article 327. The Election Commission has 
categorically stated before this Court that the powers which it exercises for 
the purposes of delimitation are governed by the statute which has been 
framed by Parliament under Article 327, namely, the Delimitation Act 2002. 
46. Following upon the judgment in Virendra Pratap (supra), three 
Ordinances were promulgated in order to create enabling provisions for the 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Election Commission to undertake an exercise of updating the Delimitation 
Orders in accordance with the additions/changes made to the Scheduled 
Tribes Order subsequent to the 2001  census.
47. The statutory framework for the enactment of the 2006 Notiﬁ cation 
and the 2008 Order is as follows: 
1. 
Under Section 4(2), the Delimitation Commission is required to 
readjust the division of each state in territorial constituencies for 
elections on the basis of the statutorily prescribed census;
2. 
Under Section 8, the Delimitation Commission has to determine, 
having regard to the provisions of Articles 81, 170, 330 and 332, 
the total number of seats to be assigned to the legislative assembly 
of each state and determine on the basis of the prescribed census 
ﬁ gures, the number of seats to be reserved for SCs and STs of 
the States;
3. 
Under Section 9, the Delimitation Commission has to distribute 
the seats in the House of the People allocated to each state and 
seats assigned to the Legislative Assemblies of the States based 
on the 1971 census ﬁ gures and delimit them in accordance with, 
Articles 81, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution, as referred to 
in Section 8;
For this, the Delimitation Commission is required to publish 
its delimitation proposals in the Gazette of India and of the 
States, specifying the date for its further consideration. It is then 
required to consider objections and suggestions by way of public
sittings in the States as it thinks ﬁ t and then ﬁ nally determine 
the delimitation of parliamentary constituencies and assembly 
constituencies of each state. 
4. 
This Order would then be published in the Gazettes and upon 
publication, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Act, “have 
the force of law and shall not be called in question in any court”. 
The readjustment and delimitation provided for in such an order 
shall, in accordance with Section 10(4) of the Act, “apply in 
relation to every election to the House or to the Assembly, as the 
case may be, held after the publication in the Gazette of India of 
that order and shall so apply in supersession of the provisions
1099
relating to such representation and delimitation contained in any 
other law for the time being in force or any order or notiﬁ cation 
issued under such law in so far as such representation and 
delimitation are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act”; and
5. 
Section 4 (5) of the RP Act states that the extent of Parliamentary 
constituencies shall be as provided by the Delimitation Orders 
under the Act of 2002. However, there is an exception in favour 
of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Jharkhand, Manipur 
and Nagaland. So, except the states mentioned in Sections 10A, 
and 10B, the other states’ parliamentary constituencies and the 
extents thereof will be determined by Orders passed under the 
2002 Act. The 2006 Delimitation Notiﬁ cation impugned herein 
is one such Order in relation to the State of Sikkim.
48. The 2006 Delimitation Notiﬁ cation was made in pursuance of the 
powers under Sections 10, 9(2) and 4(2) of the Delimitation Act 2002. It 
delimited constituencies for Parliamentary and Assembly elections in the 
State of Sikkim. The total number of seats allocated in the House of the 
People to the State was one and the total number of the seats assigned to the 
Legislative Assembly was thirty two, out of which two were reserved for 
SCs, twelve for Sikkimese of Bhutia Lepcha Origin and one for Sanghas. 
The 2006 Notiﬁ cation additionally speciﬁ ed the Constituencies and their 
extent for the Legislative Assembly as well as for the Parliament.
Issues
• 
The Petitioners have suggested first, that the Delimitation 
Commission must amend the 2006 Notiﬁ cation to reserve seats 
for Limboo and Tamangs under Article 332 and second, the 
Election Commission must use the power under Section 9(1)(aa) 
to amend the 2008 Order in accordance with the amendments 
made to the 2006 Order by the Delimitation Commission;
• 
Alternatively, the petitioners have suggested that the Election 
Commission use its powers under Section 11 and Section 9 of 
the Delimitation Act and the RP Act respectively to correct both 
the 2006 Order and the 2008 Order by reserving seats for the 
Limboo Tamang STs in accordance with the formula stated in 
Articles 330 and 332. 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
49. Accordingly, the issues that arise before us pertain to the scope of 
the powers of the two bodies – the Delimitation Commission and the Election 
Commission to make the above changes and the scope of this Court’s power 
to make the above directions. 
Analysis:
Whether Delimitation Commission can amend the 2006 Notiﬁ cation 
under the Delimitation Act
50. Article 82 of the Constitution provides that “upon the completion 
of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the 
States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be 
readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law 
determine” 
51. Article 327 provides that “Subject to the provisions of this 
Constitution, Parliament may from time to time by law make provision with 
respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to either 
House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of the 
State including the preparation of rolls, the delimitation of constituencies and 
all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such Houses”. 
52. The Delimitation Commission is a statutory body under the 
Delimitation Act. The 2006 Delimitation Notiﬁ cation is duly published 
in the Gazette of India and of the States in the manner prescribed under 
Sections 4, 8 and 10 of the Delimitation Act. In accordance with Section 
10(2), the Order has the force of law,
and cannot be called into question 
before any court of law. 
53. In Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, rejecting the 
argument that the Delimitation Act was passed under Article 82 and not 
Article 327 and that the Act was thus exempt from the bar under Article 
329, this Court has held that the Act was made under Article 327. Thus, even 
though the notiﬁ cation issued under Section 10 is not a statute, it has been 
held to have the eﬀ ect of a law relating to the delimitation of constituencies 
or allotment of seats under not only Section 10, but also under Article 327 
of the Constitution.10
10 Meghraj Kothari vs Delimitation Commission and Ors, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 12 
paras 10, 11.
1101
54. The delimitation of constituencies can only be objected to, and 
the objections entertained by the Commission when they are made before 
the Commission prior to the date speciﬁ ed by the Commission. Once the 
Orders made under Sections 8 and 9 are published under Section 10, they 
cannot be objected to. This Court has observed:
“20. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of 
constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before 
the date speciﬁ ed. Once the orders made by the Commission under 
Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the 
Oﬃ  cial Gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer 
be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason 
behind such a provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 
were not to be treated as ﬁ nal, the eﬀ ect would be that any voter, if he 
so wished, could hold up an election indeﬁ nitely by questioning the 
delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2) of 
the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the 
orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10(1) were to 
be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court. 
21. It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published under Section 
10(1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its eﬀ ect is to be the same.
…
33. In the instant case the provision of Section 10(4) of the Act puts 
orders under Sections 8 and 9
as published under Section 10(1) in 
the same street as a law made by Parliament itself which, as we have 
already said, could only be done under Article 327, and consequently 
the objection that the notiﬁ cation was not to be treated as law cannot 
be given eﬀ ect to.”
55. The 2006 Notiﬁ cation, having the force of law under Article 327, 
is protected also by virtue of Article 329 of the Constitution, which reads 
as follows: 
“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution (a) the validity of any 
law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of 
seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under 
Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any 
court;”
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
56. Thus, in view of Article 329 of the Constitution, the Delimitation 
Notiﬁ cation of 2006 cannot be called into question. Any changes to the 2006 
Notiﬁ cation, could only have been made in accordance with the Delimitation 
Act. The Act envisages changes/suggestions only until the publication of the 
ﬁ nal notiﬁ cation, consequent to which, the notiﬁ cation assumes the force 
of law in supersession of any other law for the time being in force. In view 
of Article 329, it is beyond the realm of judicial review. 
57. The Delimitation Act only provides for changes prior to the ﬁ nal 
notiﬁ cation. Once published, the Notiﬁ cation cannot be amended even by 
the Delimitation Commission under the 2002 Act. 
The question is thus answered in the negative. 
Whether the Election Commission can Amend the 2008 Order to 
incorporate those changes
The Scope of powers of the Election Commission under Article 
324 of the Constitution of India
58. Article 324 vests wide-ranging powers in the Election Commission. 
The expressions “Superintendence, direction and control” as well as 
“elections” have been interpreted widely to mean the entire process of 
elections which comprises several stages.11The power under this Article, 
though plenary, is not untrammeled, but is conditioned by the provisions 
of the statutes governing the ﬁ eld.12
59. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner,13 a 
Constitution Bench of this Court in the
context of the Election Commission’s 
power to order a re-poll and cancel a poll, clariﬁ ed that that while the 
Commission has plenary powers under Article 324, this power is subject 
to competent legislation enacted by Parliament under Article 327 of the 
Constitution. The Election Commission cannot, the court held, act in a 
manner that is contrary to the letter of the law and it is subject to scrutiny 
11 Shambhu Prasad Sharma vs Charandar Mahant, 2023 11 SCC 390. 
12 SS Dhanoa vs Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1745 
13 AIR 1978 SC 851.
1103
for its actions, notwithstanding the scope of its powers under Article 324. 
This Court held as follows: 
“Two limitations at least are laid on its plenary character in the exercise 
thereof. Firstly, when Parliament or any State Legislature has made 
valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission, 
shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions but 
where such law is silent Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for 
the avowed purpose of, not divorced from, pushing forward a free and 
fair election with expedition14” 
60. The power of the Election Commission under Article 324 is meant 
to supplement and not supplant the law made by the Parliament and must 
be read in harmony with the provisions of the statutes governing the ﬁ eld- 
which include the Delimitation Act of 2002 and the RP Act 1950. 
Scope of Powers of the Election Commission under RP Act.
61. Under Section 8 of the RP Act, the Election Commission is to 
consolidate Orders made by the Delimitation Commission under Section 10 
and under Sections 10-A and 10-B of the Delimitation Act. The consolidation 
has been carried out by the Election Commission and the 2008 Delimitation 
of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order is an outcome of this 
consolidation. 
62. Section 8(1), RP Act uses the words “having regard to all the orders 
referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 4 and sub-section (3) of Section 7 
relating to delimitation of parliamentary and
assembly constituencies in all 
States and Union Territories”. These provisions in turn, refer to the extent 
of the constituencies as determined by the Delimitation Commission under 
the Delimitation Act 2002. Once the extent is determined, the Election 
Commission’s role under Section 8, is (i) to update the “description” of the 
extent of the constituencies, without altering the extent and (ii) to consolidate 
the orders into one order, under clauses (a) and (b) respectively. Neither of 
these clauses pertains to incorporating provisions relating to the reservations 
for newly designated Scheduled Tribes. 
14 ibid para 92. 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
63. There is a duty to consolidate the Orders, as signiﬁ ed by the use 
of “shall” in Section 8, but that duty speciﬁ cally pertains to consolidation 
of Orders made by the Delimitation Commission. Once consolidated in this 
manner, which is what the Order of 2008does, Section 9, RP Act comes 
into operation. 
64. The marginal note to Section 9 is titled “Power of Election 
Commission to maintain Delimitation Order up-to-date”. Unlike Section 8, 
Section 9 uses phrase “may”. Further, Section 9(1)(aa), which the petitioners 
have relied on, encompasses the power to :
“(aa) make such amendments in the Delimitation of Parliamentary and 
Assembly Constituencies Order, 2008 as appear to it to be necessary 
or expedient for consolidating with that Order any notiﬁ cation or order 
relating to delimitation of Parliamentary or assembly constituencies 
(including reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes or the 
Scheduled Tribes in such constituencies) issued under Section 8-A of 
this Act or any other Central Act”.
65. The provision uses the phrase “as appears to it to be necessary or 
expedient”. The exercise of discretion arises when the authority in question 
is satisﬁ ed of the necessity or expediency of its exercise. Justice GP Singh 
in his book Interpretation of Statutes writes: 
“Ordinarily, the words “May” and “it shall be lawful” are not words of 
compulsion. They are enabling words and they only confer capacity, 
power or
authority and imply discretion. “They are both used in a 
statute to indicate that something may be done which prior to it could 
not be done”15
66. This Court has held that it is possible that a statute confers powers 
on authorities, which are to be exercised at their discretion, and is couched 
in permissive terms such as “it may be lawful” or “it may be permissible”. 
However, in certain cases, the power, even though discretionary, is coupled 
with a duty to act. 
15 Justice GP Singh, Interpretation of Statutes, 15th Edition pg 365 para 5.6.11.
1105
67. The present provision implies that if the Election Commission 
considers it necessary and expedient, it may consolidate with the 2008 Order 
“any notiﬁ cation or order relating to delimitation” of constituencies. The 
Election Commission has the discretion to consolidate with the 2008 Order 
any notiﬁ cation or order that relates to delimitation, and not all orders and 
notiﬁ cations whatsoever. It is so to speak, not a general exercise of updating 
the 2008 Order with any notiﬁ cation or order that follows the 2008 Order. 
The consolidation has to be done only with ﬁ rst, such a notiﬁ cation or order 
that relates to delimitation of constituencies and second, issued under Section 
8A of this Act or under any other Central Act. 
68. Amending Act of 2002 which designates Limboo and Tamang 
Scheduled Tribes is enacted under Articles 341 (2)16 and 342 (2)17 of the 
Constitution. It does not relate to delimitation, but to designation of certain 
Castes and Tribes as Scheduled Castes and Tribes for the purpose of the 
Article 366 of the Constitution. 
69. Even if the discretion, as apparently vested in the Election 
Commission to act is taken to be coupled with a duty to act, the duty arises 
only when the conditions for its exercise are fulﬁ lled18. For the Election 
Commission to act, there must be an order that relates to delimitation and 
such an order must have been issued under Section 8-A of this Act or under 
a Central Act. Neither of these conditions is present
as far as the Amending 
Act of 2002 is concerned, to warrant the exercise of power under Section 
9(1)(aa) of the RP Act. 
70. Thus, the RP Act does not envisage a duty vested in the Election 
Commission to amend the 2008 Order to include the 2002 Amending Act. 
16 (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes 
speciﬁ ed in a notiﬁ cation issued under clause of any caste, race or tribe or part of or 
group within_ any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notiﬁ cation issued under 
the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notiﬁ cation.
17 (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes 
speciﬁ ed in a notiﬁ cation issued under clause ( 1 ) any tribe or tribal community or part 
of or group within any tribe or tribal community...” 
18 Oﬃ  cial Liquidator vs Dharti Dhan, AIR 1977 SC 740. 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
Section 9, RP Act and Section 11, Delimitation Act
71. The petitioners have adverted to these provisions, as an alternative 
route to incorporate the mandate of Articles 332 into the 2006 Notiﬁ cation 
and 2008 Order. They seek a mandamus against the Election Commission 
generally in accordance with Article 332 for the Sikkim State Legislative 
Assembly, on the strength of Section 9of the RP Act and Section 11of the 
Delimitation Act. 
72. Section 11 deals with the power of the Election Commission to 
maintain delimitation orders up to date while Section 9 deals with the same 
power speciﬁ cally in respect of the Delimitation Order 2008. The salient 
aspects of these provisions are:
• 
Both the Sections use the word “may” in delineating the power 
of the Election Commission;
• 
Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of each of the provisions pertains 
to correction of printing mistakes in the orders generally and in 
the 2008 Order respectively, or any “error arising therein from 
inadvertent slip or omission”; and
• 
Clause (b) of sub-section (1) deals with necessary amendments 
on account of alteration in the boundaries or names. 
73. We have already addressed Section 9(1)(aa). The only other 
relevant clause for our purpose is clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 
11of the Delimitation Act and Section 9 of the RP Act. Clause (a) deals 
with – ﬁ rst, correction of printing mistakes in orders or the 2008 order 
respectively and
second, correction of “any error arising therein from an 
inadvertent slip or omission”. 
74. The invocation of this clause can take place only if we were to 
ﬁ nd the non-inclusion of the Limboo Tamang Scheduled Tribes in the 2006 
Notiﬁ cation and 2008 Order as an “error” arising out of an inadvertent slip 
or omission. However, the non-inclusion of these Scheduled Tribes in the 
two Orders is attributable to the fact that the Constitution itself mandates 
the delimitation exercise to be carried out in accordance with the ﬁ gures 
of the 2001 census alone and that the subsequent changes to the ST Order 
have not been accordingly assimilated with the 2001 ﬁ gures. Consequently,
1107
the delimitation exercise undertaken in 2006 could not account for the 
Amending Act of 2002. This was the speciﬁ c issue that the Court addressed 
in Virendra Pratap (supra) by stating that the Election Commission may 
obtain the relevant ﬁ gures that were de hors the 2001 census. 
75. Thus, the non-inclusion of the Limboo Tamang STs is not 
attributable to a mere error arising out of an inadvertent slip or omission- 
which are the only grounds under which the Orders can be altered by the 
Delimitation Commission or the Election Commission. 
76. The Explanation to Article 170 of the Constitution, which deals with 
the composition of legislative assemblies prescribes that the “population” 
means population as determined at the last preceding census of which ﬁ gures 
have been published. The proviso appended to it further states that the last 
preceding census would mean the 2001 census, until the ﬁ rst post-2026 
census is carried out. Section 8 of the Delimitation Act, states that the power 
to readjust the number of seats will be exercised having due regard inter 
alia to Article 170. Further clauses (a) and (b) state that the Commission 
shall determine the number of seats to be reserved in the House of People 
as well as the Legislative Assemblies, in accordance with the census ﬁ gures 
of the 2001 census. 
77. The Delimitation Commission, under Section 8, is supposed to 
act according to the 2001 census in determining the number of seats to 
be reserved. Their
non-inclusion cannot be termed as an “error arising 
out of an inadvertent slip” within the meaning of Section 9(1)(a) of the 
RP Act. 
78. The non-inclusion cannot also be termed as an “omission” either. 
The principle of statutory interpretation, noscitur a sociis, states that the 
meaning of a word is judged by the company it keeps19. The general term 
“omission” in the above clauses derives its ﬂ avour from the more speciﬁ c 
preceding phrase “inadvertent slip” and also, “printing mistakes” as speciﬁ ed 
in the same clause. The term “omission” does not cover the situation of the 
Scheduled Tribes designated as such after the 2001 census, and thereby 
excluded from consideration in a subsequent delimitation exercise.
19 GP Singh (supra) pg 391 para 5.8.2.
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
79. Therefore, this non-inclusion arises due to a lack of an enabling 
statutory provision which would accommodate post-census changes to 
the delimitation exercise. The omission envisaged by Section 9 of the RP 
Act and Section 11of the Delimitation Act refers to errors or omissions of 
a ministerial nature. The entirety of the ambit of clause (a) is to allow the 
Election Commission to correct printing mistakes and inadvertent slips or 
omissions that result in error. This, evidently, would not extend to making 
substantial modiﬁ cations in the delimitation which has been made by the 
Delimitation Commission in the exercise of its statu tory power. 
Proportional Representation
80. As regards the State of Sikkim, Section 7(1A) of the RP Act was 
inserted by Act 8 of 1980 with eﬀ ect from 1 September 1979. Section 7(1A) 
provides that out of a total of thirty two seats in the Legislative Assembly, 
twelve seats are reserved for persons of a Sikkimese Bhutia-Lepcha origin 
and one seat for the Sanghas referred to in Section 25A (apart from two 
seats for the Scheduled Castes). 
81. The provisions of sub-section (1A) of Section 7 need to be 
contrasted with those of sub-sections (1B)20 and (1C) which provide for 
reservation for the “Scheduled Tribes” in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, 
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. The purpose of emphasizing 
this distinction is that the reservation which is contemplated by clause (a)
of sub-section (1A) of Section 7 is in the character of the Bhutia-Lepcha as 
a section. This is distinct from reservations for tribes. 
82. Article 371F of the Constitution contains special provisions for the 
State of Sikkim and begins with a non-obstante clause. Clause (f) empowers 
20 (1-B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in the Legislative 
Assemblies of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland, 
to be constituted at any time after the commencement of the Representation of the 
People (Third Amendment) Act, 1987 (40 of 1987),— (a) [ﬁ fty-nine seats] shall be 
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Arunachal 
Pradesh;
[(1-C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), twenty seats shall be 
reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tripura to 
be constituted at any time after the commencement of the Representation of the People 
(Amendment) Act, 1992
1109
Parliament to make provision for the number of seats in the Legislative 
Assembly which may be ﬁ lled by candidates “belonging to such sections” 
and for the delimitation of constituencies. Parliament is entrusted with this 
enabling power “for the purpose of protecting the rights and interest of 
diﬀ erent sections of the population of Sikkim”.
83. Article 371F creates special provisions for setting apart seats in the 
Legislative Assembly for such sections as Parliament may seek to legislate 
upon. It was in exercise of the power under Article 371F(f) that Parliament 
enacted the provision enabling the reservation of twelve seats for Sikkimese 
of Bhutia-Lepcha origin under Section 7(1A) of the RP Act.
84. The validity of Section 7(1A) was challenged before this Court in 
RC Poudyal (supra). Justice MN Venkatachaliah (as the learned Chief Justice 
then was) delivered the judgment of the majority, in the Constitution Bench 
and observed that the principle of proportionality speciﬁ ed in Article 332(3) 
is a broad and general principle which is not intended to be arithmetically 
precise. Article 332(3)(a) was, hence, together with Article 333, regarded 
as illustrative of the broad principle of proportionality. The learned Judge 
observed:
“126. An examination of the constitutional scheme would indicate that 
the concept of ‘one person one vote’ is in its very nature considerably 
tolerant of imbalances and departures from a very strict application 
and enforcement. The
provision in the Constitution indicating 
proportionality of representation is necessarily a broad, general and 
logical principle but not intended to be expressed with arithmetical 
precision. Articles 332(3-A) and 333 are illustrative instances. The 
principle of mathematical proportionality of representation is not a 
declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory 
of India. Accommodations and adjustments, having regard to the 
political maturity, awareness and degree of political development in 
diﬀ erent parts of India, might supply the justiﬁ cation for even non-
elected Assemblies wholly or in part, in certain parts of the country. 
The diﬀ ering degrees of political development and maturity of various 
parts of the country, may not justify standards based on mathematical 
accuracy. Articles 371-A a special provision in respect of State of 
Nagaland, 239-A and 240 illustrate the permissible areas and degrees 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
of departure. The systemic deﬁ ciencies in the plenitude of the doctrine 
of full and eﬀ ective representation has not been understood in the 
constitutional philosophy as derogating from the democratic principle. 
Indeed, the argument in the case, in the perspective, is really one 
of violation of the equality principle rather than of the democratic 
principle. The inequalities in representation in the present case are an 
inheritance and compulsion from the past. Historical considerations 
have justiﬁ ed a diﬀ erential treatment.”
85. The Court held that the special provision under Section 371F(f) is 
based on historical considerations and compulsions peculiar to the State of 
Sikkim and based on the conditions that led to the admission of the State 
into the Union of India. The Court noted:
“128. From 1975 and onwards, when the impugned provisions came 
to be enacted, Sikkim has been emerging from a political society and 
monarchical system into the mainstream of a democratic way of life 
and an industrial civilisation. The process and pace of this political 
transformation is necessarily reliant on its institutions of the past. Mere 
existence of a Constitution, by itself, does not ensure constitutionalism 
or a constitutional culture. It is the political maturity and traditions of a 
people that import meaning to a Constitution which otherwise merely 
embodies political hopes and ideals. The provisions of clause (f) of
Article 371-F and the consequent changes in the electoral laws were 
intended to recognise and accommodate the pace of the growth of the 
political institutions of Sikkim and to make the transition gradual and 
peaceful and to prevent dominance of one section of the population 
over another on the basis of ethnic loyalties and identities. These 
adjustments and accommodations reﬂ ect political expediencies for the 
maintenance of social equilibrium. The political and social maturity 
and economic development might in course of time enable the people 
of Sikkim to transcend and submerge the ethnic apprehensions and 
imbalances and might in future — one hopes sooner — usher in a more 
egalitarian dispensation. Indeed, the impugned provisions, in their 
very nature, contemplate and provide for a transitional phase in the 
political evolution of Sikkim and are thereby essentially transitional 
in character.”
1111
86. The Court upheld the provision on the ground that Parliament had 
considered it necessary “in the admission of a strategic border State into 
the Union”.
87. It was speciﬁ cally argued in RC Poudyal that (i) Article 371F(f) 
would require parity between all sections of the State’s population and not 
only Bhutias and Lepchas and (ii) since the Bhutias and Lepchas, in addition 
to being sections covered under Article 371F(f), are also Scheduled Tribes 
and are governed by the formula stipulated under Article 332(3). Hence, it 
was urged that they had to be treated at par with the other Scheduled Tribes 
in the state and given only proportionate representation in accordance with 
the formula prescribed under Article 332(3). To the extent that Section 
7(1A) gave them greater representation than their proportion in the total 
population of the state, it was argued, that it violated Article 14 and Articles 
332 of the Constitution.
88. Rejecting the submission, the Court observed: 
• 
First, Article 371F(f) is a “merely enabling” provision. 
Consequently, as the Court noted, “if reservation is made by 
Parliament for only one section, it must, by implication, be 
construed to have exercised the power respecting the other 
sections in a negational sense”. Hence, in the view of the 
Court, the provision “enables the reservation conﬁ ned only to a 
particular section”. The Court held thereby that Parliament could 
not be directed to treat all sections of the state with
parity; and
• 
Second, on whether Section 7(1A) violated the mandate of Article 
332 (3) it was held that, the operational eﬀ ect of the non-obstante 
clause of Article 371F(f) was that it allowed a departure from 
Articles 330 and 332. This departure, it was held, was permissible 
in view of the special considerations operating in the state of 
Sikki m.
89. Thus, the following position emerges in view of the judgment in 
RC Poudyal (supra)
(i) 
Article 371F which make special provisions with respect to the 
State of Sikkim is a measure which was adopted bearing in mind 
the historical circumstances pertaining to the admission of the 
State as an integral part of the Union of India; 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
(ii) The antecedent historical circumstances leading to Article 
371Fcould legitimately be borne in mind by Parliament in 
designing a special measure for a certain section of the population 
of Sikkim and while doing so, Parliament was not bound to treat 
all the sections of the population alike;
(iii) Article 371F makes a departure from the principle embodied in 
Article 332(3) which is evident from the non-obstante clause in 
the former; and
(iv) The principle of proportionality itself is a broad and general 
guiding principle that is adopted in Articles 330 and Article 332 
but as a concept, it is not capable of application with arithmetic 
precision or exactitude.
90. The petitioners argue that RC Poudyal (supra) upheld Article 371F 
and thereby permitted a departure from the principle of proportionality 
under Article 332(3) but not a departure from the principle of reservations 
per se, under that provision. They argue that the principle of reservations 
under Article 332(3) continues to apply and to the extent it is not applied 
to Limboo Tamang Scheduled Tribes under Section 7(1A), the Section is 
ultra vires Article 332. 
91. The judgment in RC Poudyal (supra) contains the following 
observations:
“133. Sri Jain contended that Bhutias and Lepchas had been declared 
as Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution [Sikkim Scheduled Tribes] 
Order, 1978 and that the extent of the reservation in their favour would 
necessarily
be governed by the provisions of Article 332(3) of the 
Constitution which requires that the number of seats to be reserved shall 
bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of 
seats in the Assembly as the population of the Schedule Tribes in the 
State bears to the total population of the State. But, in our opinion, 
clause (f) of Article 371F is intended to enable, a departure from 
Art. 332(3). This is the clear operational eﬀ ect of the non obstante 
clause with which Article 371F opens
…
1113
181. This provision empowers Parliament to make provision 
prescribing the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly in the 
State of Sikkim which may be ﬁ lled in by candidates belonging to the 
diﬀ erent sections of the population of Sikkim with a view to protect 
the rights and interests of those sections. The non-obstante clause in 
Article 371-F enables Parliament to make a departure from the 
ratio contemplated by Article 332 (3) within the limitation which 
is inherent in the power conferred by Article 371-F, i.e., not to alter 
any of the basic features of the Constitution. It is, therefore, necessary 
to examine whether in providing for reservation of twelve seats out 
of thirty-two seats for Bhutias and Lepchas Parliament has acted in 
disregard of the said limitation.”
92. The above paragraphs form parts of the separately authored 
opinions of Justice Venkatachaliah and Justice Agarwal respectively. While 
para 133 states that Article 371F permits a departure from Article 332 (2), 
as a whole, para 181 implies that the departure is permissible only from the 
ratio contemplated in Article 332(3), as opposed to the Article as a whole. 
93. We believe that since Article 371F uses the non-obstante clause 
in respect of “anything in the Constitution”, it would be anomalous to say 
that the non-obstante clause in Article 371F only applies to a part of Article 
332(3) which deals with proportionality and not to the whole provision, 
including the very principle of
reservations. However, we are not inclined 
to ﬁ nally decide on the speciﬁ c contention of the petitioners, which requires 
a detailed analysis of the interface between Article 371F on the one side 
and Articles 332 on the other. 
94. In any case,the ruling in RC Poudyal is unambiguous on the 
aspect that proportionality is not capable of being applied with mathematical 
precision. The principle of proportionality is to be borne in mind by the 
Delimitation Commission and the Election Commission while acting in 
discharge of their powers under the two legislations. 
95. For instance, if the percentage of ST population is 3% of the total 
state population and the state has 70 Assembly Seats, 3% of 70 seats would 
be 2.1 or 2 seats (rounded oﬀ  to the closest whole number). Now if three 
seats are allocated for the STs instead of two,this would be considered 
violative of the mandate of Article 332(3) since the reservation allowed 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
to the STs is greater than their percentage of total population in the state. 
These were the facts of Anand Singh Kunwar v. Election Commission 
of India where though the Election Commission later rectiﬁ ed this error, 
a two-judge bench of this Court held that reserving 3 seats instead of 2 in 
the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly would have been contrary to the 
paramount consideration of proportionality under Article 332(3).21 Notably, 
provisions analogous to Article 371F that permit a departure from Article 
332(3) do not exist for the State of Uttarakhand.
96. Section 8 of the Delimitation Commission Act, as we have observed 
above, mandates that the exercise of the Delimitation Commission’s powers 
in determining reserved seats be in accordance with the 2001 census. In this 
the Commission must have due regard to the provisions of Articles 81, 170, 
330 and 332 of the Constitution.
97. The Delimitation Act or the RP Act do not require consideration of 
subsequent changes to the composition of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled 
Tribes Orders in determining the reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes. This 
is precisely why the Ordinances promulgated after this Court’s directions 
in Virendra Pratap (supra) created certain provisions expressly enabling 
readjustment of seats by factoring in inclusions/exclusions to the Scheduled 
Tribe lists.22 Such an enabling direction was made in the speciﬁ c factual 
context of that case in
Virendra Pratap (supra), as we have noted above.
98. However, legislative eﬀ orts in the form of the Ordinances and 
Bills, did not eventually result in the creation of a legislative framework 
creating a power to enable the Delimitation Commission and/or the 
Election Commission to incorporate changes dehors the 2001 census to 
the Delimitation Orders. The Delimitation Act and the Representation 
of the People Act, as they exist presently, do not create such a legislative 
21 (2007) 7 SCC 234. 
22 Preamble to the Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (Second) Ordinance 2013 – 
“AN ORDINANCE to provide for the readjustment of seats in the House of the People 
and in the Legislative Assemblies of the States and for the readjustment of territorial 
. constituencies therefore, insofar as such readjustment is necessitated by inclusion in 
or exclusion from the lists of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and for 
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
1115
framework. Absent a statutory duty, this Court is unable to issue a writ of 
mandamus against the respondents. 
99. This court has held in respect of the relief of mandamus, that: 
“11. The writ of Mandamus is only granted to compel performance 
of a public duty or to enforce private rights when duties of a public 
nature, aﬀ ect public rights or when private rights are breached by or 
in collusion with public oﬃ  cers.
12. The legal duty that may be enjoined by Mandamus can be one 
imposed by the Constitution, a statute, any law or by rules or orders 
having the force of law, which are capable of being judicially enforced.
13. The writ of Mandamus is liable to be refused when there is no 
legal or constitutional obligation of the authority concerned, which is 
capable of being enforced by Mandamus.23
100. For the Court to direct that in addition to the reservation which 
has been made in Section 7(1A), Parliament must necessarily legislate in 
a particular manner to provide proportional representation to all the other 
communities forming a part of the Scheduled Tribes, would be to trench 
into the legislative domain. The Court unquestionably has the power to 
determine in the exercise of judicial review as to whether a provision 
made by Parliament is contrary to constitutional principle. But equally, this 
Court would be going beyond the line that separates the legislative from 
judicial domains by directing that reservation for the Scheduled Tribes over 
and above
what has been prescribed in Section 7(1A) should be made by 
Parliament in a particular manner. This Court has held-
“Having due regard to the provisions of Articles 245 and 246 of the 
Constitution, no such mandamus can be issued by this Court. Nor 
can a direction be issued by this Court to the legislature of a State to 
enact a law.”24
101. No mandamus can be issued to Parliament as a legislating body 
to enact a legislation or to legislate in a particular manner. These are matters 
23 Vivek Krishna vs Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1040.
24 John Paily vs State of Kerala 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3405. 
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
1116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
which have to be factored in by Parliament, at its discretion. The judgment 
of the Constitution Bench in RC Poudyal clearly lays down the road map 
for the manner in which the Court must approach such a vexed issue.
102. Mr K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General has sought to rely 
on the provisions of Article 170 to contend that the Article would stand in 
the way of any fresh exercise of delimitation being carried out. 
103. The provisions of Article 170 indicate that until the census takes 
place after 2026, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly 
would be governed by the readjustment made on the basis of the 1971 
census and the division of territorial constituencies would be governed by 
the readjustment on the basis of the 2001 census. This has no bearing on 
the exercise which is required to be conducted on the issue which is raised 
in the present proceedings which essentially relates to the implementation 
of the principle of representation for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of 
the population as indicated in the 2001 census. 
104. The Additional Solicitor General sought to argue that the 2001 
census may not give accurate ﬁ gures since many of the communities that 
were subsequently designated as Scheduled Tribes were part of the general 
communities prior to the census. This is a matter for the Delimitation 
Commission to determine. How the ﬁ gures of population for a particular 
Scheduled Tribes
should be ascertained within the purview of the 2001 
census is a matter for determination which the statutory body would be 
empowered to carry out at the appropriate stage.
Conclusion
105. The delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies 
Order 2008 forms the basis of the First and Second Schedules to the RP 
Act. The Delimitation Commission completed its exercise almost ﬁ fteen 
years ago. Mr K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General submitted that 
nearly ﬁ fty-one communities were added after 2001 to the list of Scheduled 
Tribes until the last census took place in 2011. This is a matter which must 
engage the attention of the Union Government. The manner in which this 
exercise would have to be determined within the purview of the Delimitation 
Act 2002. But as we have already noted earlier, the exercise would require 
legislative amendments, particularly having regard to the provisions of the
1117
First and Second Schedules to the RP Act. Directing a legislative amendment 
is beyond the domain of judicial review. 
106. In regard to the State of West Bengal, it has been submitted, by 
the counsel appearing on behalf of the Election Commission that broadly 
an additional seat would have to be made available in the State of West 
Bengal for the Scheduled Tribes in order to accommodate the principle of 
proportional representation. The above submission makes it abundantly clear 
that it is for the Union Government to take recourse to the powers under 
the Delimitation Act 2002 for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions 
of Articles 330 and 332 are duly implemented. The Central Government 
should take a decision with all reasonable dispatch, in accordance with law. 
107. We, however, clarify that this judgment shall not be construed as 
interfering with the election schedule that the Election Commission may 
prescribe for the conduct of elections either to Parliament or to the State 
Legislative Assemblies.
108. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in view of the above discussion. 
109. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Writ petitions disposed.
Nidhi Jain
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC 
AREAS v. UOI [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]