Extensive arguments were held at Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking direction not to hold Telangana Assembly elections till delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies in Telangana was completed as seven mandals from Khammam district were transferred to Andhra Pradesh.
The petition filed by Congress leader and former minister Marri Shashidhar Reddy was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice S.V. Bhatt. The petitioner’s counsel Ravi Shankar Jandhyala argued that an order issued by the Election Commission of India delimiting two Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh State (to which seven mandals of Khammam were transferred) invoking Section 9 (b) of the Representation of People Act was unconstitutional and ultra vires.
ECI’s counsel Avinash Desai, however, said that there was no enhancement or reduction in the number of constituencies of AP through the order and hence it didn’t constitute delimitation of constituencies.
Mr. Jandhyala based his argument on the points of whether the ECI can alter boundaries, area, extent or electoral roll of any constituency using the powers conferred through Section 9 1(b) of the RP Act, 1950.
Delimitation Order
Citing the cases of the ECI appellant vs Mohd. Abdul Ghania and Laxmi Kant Bajpai vs Haji Yaqoob, the petitioner’s lawyer contended that the Supreme Court had ruled that the ECI had no powers to alter boundaries, extant or areas of constituencies shown in the Delimitation Order. The Apex Court had, he argued, made it clear that the power of delimitation of constituencies lies only with the Delimitation Commission.
He pointed out that the ECI had filed a note as part of material document (pertaining to another PIL petition) mentioning that it had deleted voters of the seven mandals of Khammam which were transferred to AP State. He maintained that the ECI had no power to delete these voters and include them in the electoral rolls of the AP.
Mr. Avinash Desai told the Bench that no geographical changes were made in any constituency of the AP as presented by the petitioner’s counsel. He cited the example of Uttar Pradesh in which 16 villages were transferred from one district to another.
