Court dismisses petitions challenging the delimitation on grounds of natural justice and procedural irregularities
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the recent delimitation of wards in various Municipal Councils and Corporations across Punjab. The petitions, led by Hardev Singh and others against the State of Punjab, contended that the delimitation process violated principles of natural justice and procedural norms, particularly emphasizing the lack of a detailed speaking order addressing objections raised during the delimitation process.
The Court, comprising Justices Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi and Vikas Suri, delivered the judgment on March 23, 2026. The petitioners argued that the delimitation orders were passed without adequately considering objections and suggestions from affected parties, and without a fair opportunity for public scrutiny, as the draft notifications were not published in newspapers, limiting public access to information.
The Court, however, upheld the delimitation process, affirming that legislative functions, such as delimitation of wards, are not inherently subject to the same rigorous procedural requirements as administrative actions. The judges noted that while objections and suggestions are invited as part of the process, there is no statutory requirement for a detailed speaking order addressing each objection individually. The Court referenced previous judgments, including those by the Supreme Court, to emphasize that legislative actions are primarily concerned with public interest and are not directed at individual rights, thus not mandating the same level of procedural fairness.
Furthermore, the Court found no procedural violations in the publication timeline, ruling that the seven-day period for filing objections, counted from the official gazette publication, was sufficient and in line with existing legal precedents. The Court also dismissed concerns about the adequacy of the information provided in the draft notifications, stating that maps and detailed plans were available for public inspection at municipal offices.
In its detailed judgment, the Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in matters of legislative functions, emphasizing that courts would only intervene in cases of evident arbitrariness or malafide intent. It concluded that the process followed by the State in delimiting the wards was consistent with the Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972, and the Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporations Order, 1995.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for the upcoming municipal elections in Punjab, setting a precedent for the interpretation of procedural requirements in legislative processes. The High Court's decision underscores the autonomy of legislative bodies in matters concerning the delimitation of electoral boundaries, reinforcing the principle that such functions are primarily political in nature and not subject to judicial micromanagement.
Bottom Line:
Delimitation of wards of Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations is a legislative function - The requirement of rules governing the delimitation process is to be complied with, but the rules of natural justice do not necessitate a speaking order addressing each objection or suggestion.
Statutory provision(s): Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972, Delimitation of Wards of Municipal Corporations Order, 1995
Hardev Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878062
