Devinder Gupta, C.J.@mdashThese two Writ Petitions involving common questions of law were heard together at the stage of admission and are heard disposed by this common Order.
2. In W. P. No. 65 of 2004 filed as PIL, the Petitioner- A. P. Scheduled Castes Welfare Association represented by its General Secretary Sri G. Shankar is seeking a mandamus against the respondents to hold the ensuing elections to the 12th A.P. Legislative Assembly and the 14th Lok Sabha to be held in the month of March/April, 2004 strictly in accordance with the provisions of Part XV of the Constitution of India, particularly in accordance with Articles 330 and 332 thereof.
3. In the other Writ Petition (W. P. No. 1669 of 2004), also filed as PIL the two petitioners - Petitioner No. 1 belonging to Scheduled Caste Mala community and Petitioner No. 2 belonging to Scheduled Tribe Lambada community are seeking a mandamus to declare the Constitution (Eighty Fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 as void, ultra vires, unconstitutional, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and consequently for a further direction for enforcement of Delimitation Act, 2002 (Act No. 33 of 2002) by readjustment of the short fall in the seats to the A. P. State Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha reserved for SCs and STs based upon 1991 census figures.
4. In the first petition notices had been issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. In response thereto, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, namely, Election Commission of India and Delimitation Commission, opposing admission of the Writ Petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and the Election Commission of India at the preliminary stage itself.
6. In the first petition, it is alleged that at present 39 seats (Member of Legislative Assembly) out of 294 seats in the A. P. State Legislative Assembly and six seats (Member of Parliament) out of 42 seats allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the House of the People are reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Elections were held to the 11th Legislative Assembly and to the 13th Lok Sabha reserving aforementioned seats in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly and in the House of the People. After dissolution of the 11th Legislative Assembly and 13th Lok Sabha preparations are now being made to hold elections to the 12th A. P. Legislative Assembly and 14th Lok Sabha shortly. Electoral rolls have also been prepared and final list is going to be prepared. Shortly after scrutinising the electoral rolls after rectification, final list will be published and 45 days thereafter election notification will be issued for holding elections. It is submitted that once election notification is issued, matters relating to election cannot be questioned in any court of Law except by way of election petition only in the case of a particular candidate elected. Anything to be rectified or corrected relating to reservation of seats or nomination of seats has to be made before election notification is issued.
7. It is further alleged that the composition of each State Legislative Assembly has to be in accordance with Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 170 of the Constitution. The expression ''population'' in the Explanation to Clause (2) of Article 170 has been defined to mean as population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published. The last preceding census now relate to the year 2001 in which the census had been completed. The petitioner has alleged that according to the proviso to the explanation to Clause (2), a different meaning is given to the word ''population'', which if construed is referable to 1991 Census, Reference to 1991 Census in the explanation is provided as per the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 2001. As per the said Amendment Act, for the purpose of Clause (2) of Article 170, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after 2026 have been published, the reference in the explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published, shall be construed as reference to 1991 Census. Article 326 provides that election to the State legislative Assembly shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. In the recent revision of electoral rolls, several citizens who have completed 18 years of age have been registered as voters and will be entitled to exercise their franchise in the ensuing elections. Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution in Part XVI of the Constitution provides for reservations of seats in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of People and State Legislative Assemblies. For the purpose of Articles 330 and 332 also, the expression "population" has been defined in Explanation to Clause (3) of Article 330 to mean the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. The last preceding census now relate to the year 2001 in which census had been completed, but the proviso to Clause (3) of Article 330 however, gives a different meaning to the word "population" which has to be construed as reference to 1991 census. In accordance with these provisions, in the elections held in the year 1999 to the 11th Legislative Assembly and 13th Lok Sabha, 39 seats out of total seats of 294 in the Legislative Assembly and six seats out of 42 seats in the Lok Sabha allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes.
8. In this background, it is further alleged that according to 1991 Census, population of Scheduled Castes in Andhra Pradesh is 16% of the total population of the State. In case the population as ascertained in 1991 census is taken into consideration, reservation in favour of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the ensuing elections has to be 47 seats (instead of 39) in the Legislative Assembly and 7 scats (instead of six) in Lok Sabha. Since Parts XV and XVI of the Constitution mandate that the population as ascertained in 1991 Census has to be taken into consideration in allocation of seats to the reserved categories, therefore, it is imperative on the part of respondents to provide reservation of 47 seats and 7 seats in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha respectively instead of 39 seats and six seats reserved in the preceding elections. The petitioners apprehends that the manner in which the electoral rolls have been prepared, it does not appear that effort is being made by the respondents to provide reservation of seats as per the increase in the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as ascertained in 1991 Census. An effort is being made by respondents to deny the reserved categories their due share and representation in the Assembly and Lok Sabha. The petitioner''s case is that if this is allowed to be done, it will deprive the voters belonging to scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes of the benefit of proper representation on their behalf, which is the mandate of the constitution.
9. The petitioners further submitted that under the Delimitation Act, 2002 (Act No.33 of 2002), which received the assent of the President of India on 3-6-2002, the Central Government has constituted Delimitation Commission. Referring to the provisions of the said Act, it is submitted that the purpose of constitution of Delimitation Commission is to readjust the allocation of seats in the House of People and the State Legislative Assemblies and to determine the seats to be reserved in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the basis of 1991 Census. But, abruptly the work of the Delimitation Commission was stopped. It is alleged that that if the Census figures of 1991 are taken into consideration, more seats are likely to be reserved for scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes as a result of which general seats will have to be readjusted and allocated to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Therefore, the petitioner has alleged mala fides that some of the aspirants seeking to contest from the general constituencies are likely to have brought pressure on the Government not go for re-allocation of the seats in accordance with 1991 Census. Now that 2001 census figures have already been prepared and published and since the Delimitation Commission has stopped its work, the petitioner apprehends that there is every possibility that respondents will not readjust the seats and will conduct elections without undertaking readjustment based on 1991 Census.
10. On the basis of the above averments, the aforementioned directions are sought for by the petitioner.
11. In reply filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 it is stated that 84th Constitution Amendment Act, inter alia provided that all Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies throughout India (including the State of Andhra Pradesh) shall be delimited afresh on the basis of the 1991 Census. The number of seats to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies was to be determined on the basis of 1991 Census. The task of delimitation of constituencies and determination of the number of seats to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes was entrusted to the Delimitation Commission specially constituted under the Delimitation Act, 2002. The Delimitation Commission constituted under that Act, in July, 2002 had commenced its job of delimiting the constituencies in various States (including State of Andhra Pradesh) on the basis of 1991 Census and determining the number of seats to be reserved for the SCs and the STs.
12. In March, 2003 the Government, thought it fit and desirable to go for another constitutional amendment whereby the delimitation work is now to be done on the basis of the latest Census of 2001 and not on the basis of the 1991 Census. Accordingly, the Constitution (Eighty Seventh Amendment) Act, 2003 was brought about by the Parliament which provides that delimitation of all parliamentary and assembly constituencies will be on the basis of census figures of 2001. Final figures of the 2001 Census have been published by the Census Commissioner of India only on 31-12-2003 excepting the States of Uttar Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland. The Delimitation Commission will have to commence further work of delimitation in all States, including the State of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of 2001 Census figures. Respondents 2 and 3 further state that duration of the House of People and State Legislative Assemblies is governed by the provision of Articles 83(2) & 172(1) and 85(2)(b) & 174(2)(b) of the Constitution respectively. Election to constitute a New House on the expiry/dissolution of the earlier House is a constitutional requirement, which cannot be withheld for the sake of completing the delimitation exercise. The readjustment of constituencies as per the second proviso to Article 82 and to Clause (3) of Article 170 shall take effect only from the date as specified by the President and until such readjustment takes effect, elections to the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies are to be held on the basis of the existing territorial constituencies. In this view of the matter, respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the prayer for applying delimitation or reservation of seats in favour of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes on the basis of 1991 Census is totally misconceived.
13. In the second petition, the petitioners have alleged that the allocation of seats both to Lok Sabha and State Legislatures by the Schedule to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is based on the then existing population and hence delimitation of constituencies for upwardly revising the same was envisaged by the founding fathers of the Constitution. The population based formula for determining seats to Lok Sabha and to State Legislative Assemblies, which are the constituent segments of the respective Lok Sabha seats was one seat per million for the first 5 million and 1 seat for every 5 million thereafter. During emergency when fundamental rights in Part III including Article 14 remained suspended, the then Government amended the Constitution by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act 1976 and thereby postponed delimitation of constituencies by 25 years till 2000 Census was completed. By the said Amendment Act, Articles 81, 82, 170, 332 and 334 were also amended thereby denying to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes members their constitutional rights and benefits to representation to the House of the People and the State Assemblies. Petitioners submitted that reservation of seats in favour of scheduled castes in the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies ought to have been enhanced from time to time based on the population formula by enforcing the delimitation of constituencies both to the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies. The Constitution 42nd Amendment Act thus in itself is a fraud on the Constitution and ill-treatment is meted out to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners further alleged that scheduled castes and scheduled tribes have a right to representation to more seats in the assembly and for enhancement of seats by delimitation of constituencies based upon latest census figures which was consistently denied up to 2000. Though there have been some increase in seats, but recently Constitution Eighty-Fourth Amendment Act has been passed amending Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 thereby postponing the necessity of delimitation of constituencies beyond 2026. By the said Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 merely figure 2026 has been substituted for the figure 2001. The petitioners have alleged that the Amendment Act, 2001 not only amend or repeal the fundamental right in part III of the Constitution expressly, but has destroyed the constitutional rights of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes altogether and their fundamental right for the enforcement of their constitutional rights without due process and without any regard or respect for the basic: structure and basic features of the Constitution. By reason of the Amendment Act, 2001, a new situation unknown to democratic Constitutions is engrafted onto our constitution resulting in postponing the constitutional rights guaranteed to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes contained under Articles 81, 82, 170, 331 and 332 from time to time and ad-infinitum. Thus, it is alleged that the Constitution Eighty-Fourth Amendment Act smears the Constitution with its blend of duplicity " double entendre " --double speak -- dishonesty and thus alters the basic features of equality.
14. We have given our due consideration to the submissions made at the bar but are of the view that mandamus as has been sought for cannot be granted. We will assign briefly our reasons for the same since we are disposing of the writ petitions at the admission stage only.
15. Part XVI of the Constitution deals with special provisions relating to certain classes. Article 330 provides for reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the house of People and Article 332 provides for reservation of seats for SCs and STs in Legislative Assemblies. The effect of reservation of seats for SCs or STs is to guarantee a minimum number of seats to the members of SCs and STs. Such number has to be in the same proportion to the total number of seats as the population of the SCs or STs in the State has a bearing to total population of the State. Explanation to Article 330 defines ''population'' to mean population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. There is a proviso added to Article 330 by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 making it clear that the reference in the explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 1971 Census. Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 which received the assent by the president on 21st February, 2002 substituted for the figures ''2000'', the figures ''2006'' in Articles 55 and 81 of the Constitution. Similarly, the Act provides that for the figures ''2000'' and ''1971'' the figures ''2006'' and "1991" shall respectively be substituted in Articles 82, 170, 330 and 332. The Constitution (Eighty Seventh Amendment) Act, 2003 which received the assent of the President on 22-6-2003 has further amended Article 330 wherein it provided that in the proviso to the Explanation, for the figures "1991" the figures "2001" shall be substituted.
16. Composition of the House of the People is provided in Article 81 whereas composition of State Legislative Assembly is provided in Article 170. Articles 81 and 170 before the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act read as follows :
Article 81: (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 331, the House of the People shall consist of --
(a) not more than five 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 "population" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published.
Provided that the reference in this clause to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 1971 Census.
Article 170 : (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 333, the Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than five hundred, and not less than sixty, members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State.
(2) For the purposes of Clause (1), 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 shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State.
Explanation : In this clause, the expression "population" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published.
Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 1971 Census.
(3) Upon the completion of each census, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State 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 affect representation in the legislative Assembly until the dissolution of the then existing Assembly.
Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect from such date as the President may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes effect any election to the legislative Assembly may be held on the basis of the territorial constituencies existing before such readjustment.
Provided also that until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and the division of such State into territorial constituencies under this clause.
17. Article 82 of the Constitution deals with readjustment of allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and division of each State into territorial constituencies upon completion of each census. Article 82 as it originally stood substituted by virtue of Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act. 1956, and prior to the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 read as under :
Article 82 : 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 affect representation in the House of the People until the dissolution of the then existing House :
Provided further that such readjustment shall take effect from such date as the President may, by order, specify and until such readjustment takes effect, 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 figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies under this article.
18. Prior to the Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act. 2001 amendments were made to Articles 81, 82 and 170 by virtue of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. By the said Amendment Act, a proviso was added to Clause (3) of Article 81 and second and third provisos were inserted to Article 82. Explanation to the second proviso to Article 170 was substituted and second proviso to Clause (3) of Article 170 was added. These amendments were carried out to ensure that the allocation of seats to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies need not await the delimitation of constituencies after each census. It was provided that readjustment of boundaries and reallocation of seats after each census shall take effect only from such date as the President may by order fix. Thus by virtue of 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 the reference to the 1971 Census was further extended and frozen till the year 2001.
19. As noticed above, by Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 2001. amendments were carried out to Article 55, 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 by substituting the figures "2026" for the figures "2000" and the figure "1991" for the figures "1971". At this stage, it is apt to notice the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Constitution (Eighty-Fourth Amendment) Act, which are to the following effect :
Provisos to Articles 82 and 170(3) of the Constitution provide that no fresh readjustment of constituencies can be undertaken until the figures of the first census taken after the year 2000 are published. These provisos were inserted by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 as a measure to boost family planning norms. Since the first census to be taken after the year 2000 has already begun, the constitutional embargo on undertaking fresh delimitation will lapse as soon as the figures of this census are published.
2. There have been consistent demands, both for and against undertaking the exercise of fresh delimitation. Keeping in view the progress of family planning programmes in different parts of the country, the Government, as part of the National Population Policy strategy, recently decided to extend the current freeze on undertaking fresh delimitation up to the year 2026 as a motivational measure to enable the State Government to pursue the agenda for population stabilisation.
3. Government has also decided to undertake readjustment and rationalization of territorial constituencies in the States, without altering the number of seats allotted to each State in the house of the people and legislative Assemblies of the States, including the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes constituencies, on the basis of the population ascertained at the census for the year 1991, so as to remove the imbalance caused due to uneven growth of population/ electorate in different constituencies.
4. It is also proposed to re-fix the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of the States on the basis of the population ascertained at the census for the year 1991)
20. By the Constitution (Eighty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2003 further amendments have been carried out to Articles 81, 82, 170 and 330 whereby in the respective articles for the figures "1991" the figures 2001" were substituted.
21. It can thus be seen that for the first time the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 brought about the change providing that the election to the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies need not await delimitation of the constituencies after each census. Position which prevailed under 1971 Census was thus frozen till the year 2001. The said 42nd Amendment Act also specifically inserted provisos to Articles 82 and 170 that readjustment of territorial constituencies and reallocation of seats whenever carried out, after each census, shall take effect only from such date as the President may by order fix. As such no effect can be given to readjustment of territorial constituencies and reallocation of seats, if any, carried out pursuant to any census until the President has fixed a date specifically stating that such readjustment of territorial constituencies and reallocation of seats shall take effect, from that particular date. There is no challenge made in both the writ petitions as to the constitutional validity of the said provisions inserted by the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act. It may be noticed herein that the task of readjustment of territorial constituencies and reallocation of seats has not so far been completed by the Delimitation Commission either according to 1991 Census or 2001 Census.
22. Delimitation Act, 2002 came into force with effect from January, 2002. Delimitation Commission was constituted under the said Act with the task assigned to it to readjust the division of each State into territorial constituencies for the purpose of allocation of seats to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies on the basis of Census figures as ascertained at the Census held in 1991. As noticed above, the delimitation of constituencies by the Commission can take effect only from the date to be notified by the President. It may be noted that after the Delimitation Act, 2002 came into force and the Commission started its functioning, Parliament enacted Constitution (Eighty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2003 which came into force with effect from 22-6-2003. By the said Act, the figures "1991" occurring in Articles 81. 82, 170 and 330 were substituted by the figures "2001". As a result of these amendments, the Delimitation Commission had to stop its functioning, as explained in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that in March 2003 it was decided to go for another constitutional amendment whereby the delimitation work is now to be done on the basis of the latest census of 2001 and not on the basis of the 1991 Census.
23. It was a laudable object to bring about amendment to the Constitution since census figures of 1991 would not have been relevant for the readjustment of constituencies in the year 2003 or 2004 because of fresh census having taken place in the year 2001 of which census figures are now available. There is no challenge to the Constitution (Eighty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2003. It is but natural that the readjustment of seats will have to be done now on the basis of census figures of 2001 for which Delimitation Commission will have to undertake its task afresh. The first step in the direction for the Delimitation Commission would be to complete its work and submit its report. Only thereafter readjustment of seats and reallocation of territorial constituencies will have to be given effect to and that only from the dates as are notified by the President. The Census Commissioner of India has published census figures of 2001 only on 31st December, 2003 except in respect of few States. The Delimitation Commission obviously could not have commenced its work prior to 31st December 2003.
24. The prayer made in these two petitions is that till there is readjustment of the constituencies direction be issued not to hold the elections so that there is proper representation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Merely because delimitation and readjustment of constituencies has not yet taken place and cannot take place so soon, the elections to the House of the People and State Legislative Assembly cannot be ordered to be postponed till readjustment takes place. The Commission is likely to take its own time to complete the allotted task. The main objective of the 42nd Amendment Act as noticed above was that elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative assemblies need not await delimitation of constituencies after each census and that the elections to the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies be held on the basis of the existing territorial constituencies. It specifically provided that reallocation of seats shall take effect only from such date as the President may by order fix. Now, in view of the Constitution (Eighty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2003, the Delimitation Commission has to finalise the delimitation and readjustment of territorial constituencies on the basis of the census figures of 2001, which according to the respondents 2 and 3 will definitely take considerable time. Withholding of elections would only amount to depriving the people to elect Government of their choice particularly at a stage when the State Legislative Assembly as also the Lok Sabha stands dissolved.
25. The basic structure of our Constitution in this regard is to have an elected democratic form of Government. Clause {2} of Article 83 provides that the House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the House. Clause 2 (b) of Article 85 provides for dissolution of the House of the People by the President prior to the said date. Therefore, the House of the People may stand dissolved either on expiry of five years under Article 83(2), or by an order of dissolution made by the President at any time earlier, under Article 85(2)(b). Similarly, Clause (1) of Article 172 of the Constitution provides that every legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the Assembly. Clause 2 (b) of Article 174 of the Constitution provides for dissolution of the Assembly by the Governor. The State Legislative Assembly, therefore, may stand dissolved either on expiry of five years under Article 172(1) or by an order of dissolution made by the Governor at any time earlier, under Article 174(2) (b).
26. Therefore conduct of elections to the House of the People and the State Legislative Assemblies as and when they are due is a constitutional requirement as envisaged under the constitutional framework. Such a constitutional requirement cannot be withheld or postponed on the ground that the Delimitation Commission has not undertaken the task of delimitation and readjustment of territorial constituencies, particularly in view of 42nd Constitution Amendment, which provides that elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies need not await delimitation of constituencies after each census. We, therefore, do not find that any ground has been made out to issue mandate as prayed for. If any directions as prayed for are issued, it would also amount to issuing a mandate to the President of India to fix a date by which readjustment or reallocation of territorial constituencies shall take effect which cannot be done by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
27. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the other petition (W.P. No. 1669 of 2004) that the Constitution Eighty-Fourth Amendment Act in a way alters the basic structure of the Constitution. The basic structure of the Constitution has remained the same, which has already provided for reservations of seats for SCs and STs, which presently is in relation to certain census figures for a particular year. A mere change in the definition of the expression ''population'' with respect to census figures for a particular year, in our considered opinion, will not have the effect of altering the basic structure of the Constitution. It only defined certain words. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that to have an elected democratic form of Government is also one of the basic structures of our Constitution. Elected democratic form of Government is necessary to carry out the constitutional and other executive functions by the Government as envisaged under the constitutional scheme in order to fulfil the goals cherished under the Constitution and to have smooth working of the Constitution. Election to constitute a new House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State on the expiry of its term or dissolution of the earlier House thus being a constitutional requirement cannot be withheld or postponed. The President or the Governor, as the case may be, must have the Council of Ministers to advise him in the discharge of his constitutional functions, which are necessary for the working of the Constitution, lest the very spirit of the Constitution and the concept of democracy underlined under the Constitution would be in jeopardy. The prayer of the petitioners, therefore, if allowed would create a constitutional vacuum and lead to constitutional fiasco. As such, we do not find any force in the said submission also.
28. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the Writ Petitions, which are dismissed at the admission stage.
