Ajay Juyal v. State Election Commission ( NCT of Delhi)

SANJIV KHANNA, J.: Rule DB.

¶2In view of the urgency expressed,with the consent of the parties we have treated W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017, We the Citizen Through Secretary Vs. Union of India & Ors., as the lead case. The respondent. The State Election Commission (SEC, for short)'.has filed reply/eounter affidavit in this writ petition, which was circulatedand furnished to the counsel for the petitioners in other writ petitions.

¶3Keeping in view the similarity of the issues involved, this eommon judgment would dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶4Elections to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), North Delhi Municipal Corporation

(NDMC) and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) are to be held in April, 2017.

¶5As per Section 3 (6) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Act, for short), upon completion of eaeh census after establishment of the Coiporation(s), the number of seats on the basis of population of the area of the Corporation(s) is to be ascertained and determined by the Central IV.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+coniiecte(l matters Page 6 of38 "1 Governmentby anotificationin the OfficialGazette. The said sectionalso stipulatesthat the numberofseats reservedfor the merribersof Scheduled Castesshall,as neaidyas may be bearthe same ratio to the total numberof seats as the populationofSeheduledCastes bears to the total populationof Delhi. The first proviso to the section, however,stipulatesthat the total numberofseatsin the Coiporationsshallnot exceedthe figureof272.

¶6In view of the new censusdata for 2011, the aforesaidexercisewas imdcitaken by the SEC at-therequestofthe Govemmentof the National Capital Territoiy of Delhi vide the order of the Lieutenant Governor No.F7(55)DLB/2015/PT-1/4276-82dated }8-September, 2015. This notificationhad stipulatedthat the SEC shall have the power to call for population data as per 2011 Census, census maps, census details of bnumeratedBlocks with figures oftotalpopulationand ScheduledCastes populationfor the said purpose from fhe Directorof Census Operations Delhi,and takeassistancefrom Geospatial,Delhiand others. The SEC was to prepareadraftdelimitationorderfor all the'threeCorporationsshowing the number and extent of wards in each Corporation,maps of each ward indicatingclearly boundarieson the North, West, East and South of each waid. It was mandated that wide pubiicity,for inviting objectionsand suggestionsto the draft delimitationorder, be given through press and media. Thereafter, the final delimitation order shall be sent to the Governmentfor approval and publicationin the Official Gazette. The wards upon delimitation,it was prescribed,shouldbe withinoneAssembly Constituencyand not cross it. 7-To undertake this onerous and immense exercise, services of ly.P. (C) No. 1291/20I7+counecte(Imatters Page 7of38 Geospatial, Delhi for satellite mapping and'digitizationand grouping of wards into EnumeratedBlock groups were availed. This digitized data, after recheck, was analyzed to finalize the ward boundaries. These boundaries were compared with the boundaries of the Assembly Constituencies, to ensure that the ward boundaries did not extend to two Assembly Constituencies.

¶8On the basis of data and details furnishedby GeospatialDelhi and after consultationwith the public. Resident Welfare Associations,etc. the pioposed draft delimitation was prepared containing Corporation-wise EnumeratedBlocks data. Corporation-wiselocalities/coloniesand the ward maps with populationfiguresand data. The detailswith regardto principles of delimitationwere adumbrated.Copy ofthis proposeddraftwas supplied to the Members of Parliament, Members"of LegislativeAssembly and Councillors. Consultations/meetings were held with the different stakeholders.

¶9Consequentto the said deliberations,the.first draft delimitationorder was put up on the website, www.sec.delhigovt.nic.in,on 9"' September, 2016. Simultaneously,advertisementswere placed in 9newspapersin four ditferentlanguageson lO"' September,2016, invitingthe publicto log on to the website and give their comments and objections.Draft order was also sent to the elected representatives for inviting their suggestions and objections.

¶10By 24 September, 2016, more than 700 recommendations/ suggestions were received, which were examined and studied with reference totheguidelinesorprinciplesfixed by theSEC. ^y-P- (C) No. 1291/201y+coiinectedtnatters Page8of38

¶11On 24^'' October,2016, a meetingwas held with the Commissioners and Town Planners of the three Corporations to discuss demarcation of boundaries of the wards, how municipal services would be provided as per the new delimitation of wards, how to treat un-demarcated areas, like green-belt etc. Discrepancies pointed out in the feedback were corrected.

¶12After due analysis and deliberation, three delimitation orders with regard to each Municipal Corporation dated 13"^ January, 2017 were published by the Lieutenant Governor, under section 3 and 5 of the Act. The orders recount that the Government had assigned the work of delimitation of wards in the three Cprporations as per the provisions of different sub-sections of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act to the SEC. As per the guidelines, all wards had to be demarcated within -one Assembly Constituency. In terms of power conferred by the Central Government under sub-section (6) of Section 3 and sub-section (2) of Section 5, the Lieutenant Governor notified 104 wards each in NDMC and SDMC and 64 wards in EDMC. The said notification had assigned new ward numbers, new ward names etc. The area or demarcation of each ward was fixed. Each ward has a population of about 60,000, with variation between 10,000 to 15,000 persons.

¶13Thereafter,on 3''' February,2017,the SEC held anothermeetingwith members of different political parties, officers, etc. on the question of reservation of different wards for women and Scheduled Castes. By the notificationdated 6"' February, 2017 published in the Delhi Gazette, the SEC, on the basis of the 2011 Census, has computed and fixed the reserved seats for each Corporation as under:- JV.P. (C) No. I291/2017+connecte(l matters Page 9 of38 Name of M.C. Populati on S.C. Popiilatio n Percenta ,.ge No. of seats in a No. of Seats reserved for North Dp! hi 6254758 1212172

19.38% South Hplhi 6214059 879053

14.15% East Delhi 3949846 654998

16.58% This notificationalso gives the name ofthe wards, their population, Scheduled Castes population, their percentage, and number of seats reserved.

¶14On the questionof reservationof seats/wards,the notificationdated 6^'* Februaiy,2017had stipulated:-"AND WHEREAS, now-as ,per the Delimitation Order No. F.7(55)DLB/2015/Pt.1/202, 20'3 & 204 dated, 13/01/2017which is based on Census2011, the dumberofwards in each Assembly Constituencyhave changed and the Election Commission has decidedto adoptthe.seat reservation,for ScheduledCastes on the basis ofhighestpercentage,ofScheduledCastes populationin a ward within the Corporationin a descendingorder. Thus within the Coiporation the wards with the highest percentage of ScheduledCastes populationwill be reserved to the numbers as specifiedabove. The Analogyadopted is the same as used while reselling Scheduled Caste seats for assembly constituenciesin Delhi." fhus foi reseiwation for Scheduled Castes highest percentage of ScheduledCastes in the ward within the Corporationin descendingorder, was taken as the basis. WardswithineachCorporationareawiththe highest peicentageof Scheduled Castes populationin the descendingorder were reserved. IV.P. (C) No. 129l/2017+co)j]iecte(l matters \A-

¶15With regardto reservationfor women, both in Generalseats and the seats reserved for ScheduledCastes, this notificationdated 6"^ February, 2017 providesas under:- "NOW, THEREFORE,in exerciseof the powers as delegated by CentralGovernmentand the Governmentof NationalCapital TerritoryofDelhi as delegatedto the ElectionCommissionofthe National Capital Territoryof Delhi as detailed in the preceding paras and all other enabling provisions, I, S. K. Srivastava, Election Commissioner, do hereby reserve the Wards in the above-notedthree Corporationslor the specified categories as under

(a) Forthe purposeofreservationofseats for the above-mentioned categories, the wards with highest percentage of Scheduled Castes, in descendingorder, in each Corporationhave been taken to the numbers as required to be reserved. In pursuanceof the provisionsof sub-section(7).of sec.3 of the said Act, seats tO be reserved for women belongirigfo Scheduled Castes, from among the seats reserved for the Scheduled-Castes should not be less than one half of the total .number Of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Thus , 3'"'' , 5"' numbers taken for ScheduledCastes Women seats and rest ,for Scheduled Castes seats.

(b)Forreservationof Wards for women and General categories,as per provision of Sub - Section (8) of Section 3 ibid, lists of remainingwards [afterdeductionof Wards reservedfor S.C. (W) and S.Cs] in sequence of serial numbers of wards in each Corporationhas been taken into consideration.In every such list, every l"', 3rd, 5"' Ward and so on, taken as reservedfor 'Women', as it should not be less than one half of the total number of remainingseats and every 2"^, 4th, 6"' Ward and so on, taken as 'General'. Consequentto the procedureadoptedfor reservationof Wards as indicated above, the reservation of Wards in each of the three Municipal Corporations,for specified categories in consecutive serial order, is detailed in Annexure I, II & III. IKP. (C) No. 1291/2017+counectedmatters 11 of38 ' AnnexureI, relatingto NDMC reads "North Delhi Municipal Cornoration

(i) Total Wards - 104. !

(ii) Seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, as per the highest percentageof ScheduledCastes population,in descendingorder, ' are Ward Numbers-94, 45, 55, 56, 47, 91, 46, 54, 48, 69, 49, 76, 13, 74, 37, 83, 4, 92, 82 and 95 = Total - 20 Wards.

(iii)Seats reservedfor ScheduledCastes as per chronologicallist of wards ofthe NorthDelhiMunicipalCorporation:- < Ward Numbers-4, 13, 37, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 69, 74, 76, 82, 83, 91, 92, 94 and 95 = Total - 20 Wards.

(iv)Scheduled Castes tWomen) seats; - Ward Numbers-4, 37, 46, 48, 54,,56, 74, 82, 91 and 94 = Total - 10 Wards. (N', 3'''', 5th numbers .taken for Scheduled Castes Women seats and so on). I

(v) Scheduled Castes.seats: - Ward Numbers-13, 45,'47,49, 55, 69, 76, 83, 92 and 95 = Total , - 10 Wards. (2"'', 4th, 6"' numbers taken for Scheduled Castes seats and so on).

(vi)Remaining seats: - Ward Numbers^-1,2,7, 8, 101112,. 1516171819202122 23 24,252627282930313233343536,3940444243445051 52 53,575859606162636465666768,71727375 77787980 8l' 84,8586878889909396979899100,101, 102, 103 and 104= ' Wards. (TotalWards 104-SCreservedWards20 = M Wards

(vii) Women seats: - , Ward Numbers-1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15,17, 19,21, 23,25, 27, 29, 31,33,35,38,40, 42, 44, 51, 53,58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68,71, 73, 77, 79, 81, 85, 87, 89, 93, 97, 99,101 and 103 =Total-42 Wards,(l", 3rd, 5"' numbers takenfor Womenseatsand so on). fV.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connec(e(lmatters Page12 of38

(viii) General seats: - Ward Numbers-2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18,20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 34 36 39 43^ 50', 52' 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67,70, 72, 75, 78, 80, 84, 86,88, 90, 96, 98, 100, 102 and 104 =Total-42 Wards. (2", 4th, 6' numbers taken for General seats and so on). SUMMARY: - SC (Women)= 10 seats,SC= 10 seats= Total = 20 wards. Women = 42, General = 42, Total = 84 Wards 20 Wards reserved for SC (Women) and SCs and 84 Wards for women & General category = Total 104 wards." (SimilarAnnexureswere issuedfor the SDMC and EDMC)

¶16The said notification, as recorded above, refers to new ward numbers in the three Corporations,with wardnariieand whetherthe said ward would be reserved for Women, Scheduled-Caste, Scheduled Caste (Women) or would be open to all. Noticeably,women candidatescan apply for General seats and Scheduled Caste (women) candidates can stand for Scheduled Caste seats. Scheduled Castes male and female candidates can also stand for General seats.

¶17The petitionershave primarily challengedthe notificationdated 6^'' February, 2017, on the followinggrounds:-

(i) The criteriafor reservationof ScheduledCasteswards on the basis of highestpercentageof ScheduledCastespopulationin a ward in descending order is contraryto the criteriawhich was adopted in the electionsheld in 2007 and 2012 and approved by a single Judge of this Court in Ramesh Dutta Vs. The State Election Commission, 144 (2007) DLT 286 and by a W.P. (C) No. 1291/20]7+connecte(lmatters P"8e 13 of38 ; ^Jy DivisionBench in Vikas &Ors. Vs. State Election Commission&Ors., 188 (2012)DLT 390 (DB).

(ii) Ihe reservationofwards for ScheduledCastes and women fall foul and are contraiyto Article243T of the Constitutionand the fourthproviso to sub-section(6) to Section3, proviso to sub-section(8) to section3 and clause (e), sub-section(2) to Section5of the Act. These-clausesrelate to rotation of the reseiwed seats for the Scheduled Castes and women in different wards.

(ill) fhe SEC has violatedthe undertakingand directionsrecordedin the judgmentmthe case of Vikas (supra) that there would be rotationof the reseiwed wards. • We have deliberatelynot expoundedand elaboratedon the different facets and aspectsofthe contentionsraisedto avoidprolixityas thesehave been examined below.

¶18In order to decide the presentlis, we .would like to first reproduce Article 243T of the Constitutionand sub-sections(5), (6) (7) and (8) to Section3of the Act and Section5(1) and 5(2) of the Act, which are as under;- Constitution of Tndin 243T.Reservationofseats.-(l)Seatsshallbe reservedfor the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in every Municipalityand the numberofseats so reservedshallbear, as nearly as may be, the same proportionto the total number of seats to^ be filled by directelectionin that Municipalityas the populationofthe ScheduledCastesin the Municipalarea or of the ScheduledTribes in the Municipalarea bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotationto differentconstituenciesin aMunicipality fV.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connectedmatters Page 14 0/38

(2) Not less than one thirdofthe total numberof seats reserved underclause( 1) shall be reservedfor womenbelongingto the ScheduledCastesor, as thecasemay be, theScheduledTribes.

(3) Not less than one third (including the number of seats reservedfor women belongingto the ScheduledCastes and the ScheduledTribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by diiect election in eveiy Municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allottedby rotationto different constituenciesinaMunicipality.

(4) The offices of Chairpersonsin the Municipalitiesshall be reserved for the ScheduledCastes, the ScheduledTribes and women msuch manner as the Legislatureofa State may, by law, provide.

(5) The reservationofseatsunderclauses(1)and (2 )and the reseiwation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservationfor women) under clause ( 4 ) shall cease to have eflecton the expirationoftheperiodspecifiedin article334.

(6) Nothingin this Part shall preventthe LegislatureofaState trom making any provision for reservation.of seats in any Municipalityor officesofChairpersonsin the Municipalitiesin lavour of backward class of citizens. xxxx DelhiMunicipalCorporation Act. 1957

3.EstablishmentofCorporations

(5) The total numberofseats ofcouncilorsand the numberof seats reservedfor the membersofthe ScheduledCastesin each Corporation, shall, at the time of establishment of such Corporation, be as determined by the Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

(6) Upon the completionofeach censusafterthe establishment ofaCorporationthe numberofseatsshall be on the basisofthe

(C) No. 1291/20]7-^-c()f2necte(lmatters nrage 15 of38 i populationofthe area ofthe Corporationas aseertainedat that census and shall be determinedby the CentralGovernmentby notificationin the OfficialGazette and the nurhber of seats to be reservedfor the members ofthe.ScheduledCastes shall, as I nearly as may be, bear the same ratio to the total number of seats as the populationof ScheduledCastes bears to the total ! populationofDelhi: Providedthat the total number of seats in all the Corporations in Delhi shall in no case be more than two hundred and seventy-twoand the numberofseats in each Corporationshall be determinedby the Governmentatthe time od establishment of such Corporations: Provided further that for the first election to the Corporations to be held immediately after the commencementof the Delhi MunicipalCorporation(Arnendmeht)Act, 2011, the population figures of every such Corporationas published in relation to I 2011 census shall be deemed to be the population thereof as ascertained in that census: ! Provided also that the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes may be allottedby rotationto differentwards in such manneras the CentralGovernmentmay, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct.

(7) Seats shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes, from among the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the number of such seats being determined by the Governmentby order publishedin the OfficialGazette which shall not be less than one-half of the total number of seats reseiwed for the Scheduled Castes.

(8) Seats shallbereservedfor women,thenumberof such seats being determinedby orderpublishedin the OfficialGazetteby the Government which shall not be less than the one-half of total number of seats other than those reserved for the Scheduled Castes: ir.P. (C) No. I29I/20I7+coiinecte(lmatters Pnge of38 I Provided that such seats reserved for women shall be allotted by rotation to differentwars in such manner as the Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct in this behalf XXXX I

¶5Delimitation of wards. -

(1) For the purposes of election of councillors, the area of a corporation shall be divided into single-member wards in such manner that the population of each of the wards, shall, so far as ^ practicable,bethesamethroughoutthe areaofthe corporation.

(2) The Government shall, by order in the Official Gazette, ' determine,-

(a) the number of wards;

(b) the extent of each ward; i

(c) the wards in which seats shall be reseiwed for the Scheduled ^ Castes;

(d) the wards in which seats shall be reserved for women; and ^

(e) the mannerin which seats shall be rotated under sub-section

(6) and (8) of section 3."

¶19Article 243T of the Constitution provides that in every municipality, seats would be reserved for Scheduled Castes (and Scheduled Tribes) and the number of seats so reserved shall be in the same proportion as the population of the Scheduled Castes (or Scheduled Tribes) in the Municipal area. The extent and proportionality of reservation is with reference to the Municipal area and not the ward in the Municipal area. The provision does not make reference to the Parliamentary or Assembly Constituency/ies. yy.P. (C) No. 1291/20}7+coniiecteclmatters Page 17 of38 Clause (1) of Article 243T further states that such seats would be allocated by rotation to different constituencies, i.e. wards in the Municipality. Clauses (2) and (3) to Article 243T stipulates reservations for women in the General seats and the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, etc., which shall not be less than one-third of the total number of seats in General and the reserved category. We are not concerned with the other clauses of Article 243T.

¶20Sub-section (5) to Section 3 of the Act states that the total number of seats of Councillors and the number of seats reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes in the three Corporations shall be at the time of establishmentof the Corporation(s)determined by the Government by notificationin the OfficialGazette. This clausewould not be applicableas we are not dealing with the position at'the time of establishment of the three Corporations. Sub-section(6) would,beapplicablein the presentcase. The said sub-section stipulates that on completion of every census after establishment of a Corporation,the number of seats to be reserved for membersofScheduledCastesshall,aS nearlyas may be, bearthe same ratio to the total number of seats as the populationof ScheduledCastes bears to the total populationof Delhi. Again sub-section(6) refers to the total populationof Delhi and the proportionand ratio of ScheduledCastesto the total population. It does not mention or refer to the Assembly Constituenciesorthe wards. Firstprovisostipulatesthat numberofseats or wards in all the three Corporationsshall not exceed272 and the number of seats ineach Corporationshallbedeterminedby the Governmentatthe time of establishmentof the Corporation.We are not concernedwith the second and third provisos in the presentcase, though we may notice that the third IV.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+coiiuectedmatters Page 18 of38 provisostatesthat for the firstelectionto be held ofthe Corporationafter commencementof Delhi MunicipalCorporation(Amendment)Act. 2011, (he populationfigures in the 2001 Census shall be the basis. The fourth proviso stipulatesthat the seats reserved tor Scheduled Castes may be allotted by rotation to different wards in such manner as the Central Governmentmay. by orderpublishedin the OfficialGazette,direct. This provisothus statesthatthatseats/wardsreservedfor ScheduledCastesmay be rotated,and. in the manneras is determinedby the CentralGovernment by an orderto be publishedin theOfficialGazette. Sub-sections(7) and (8) relateto reservationofwomen in ScheduledCasteseatsand Generalseats, which shall not be less than one-halfof the total numberof seats reserved for ScheduledCastesand the Generalcandidates,respectively.The seatsso reservedwillbe determinedby the Governmentby an orderpublishedin the OfficialGazette. Provisoto sub-section,(8)statesthatthe seatsreservedfor women shallbe allottedby rotationto.differentwards in suchmanneras the Governmentmay state,by orderpublishedin the OfficialGazette.

¶21Section5of the Act states that for the purposeof Councillors,the areaofCorporationwill be dividedin single-memberwards in suchmanner that the populationof each ward as far as practicableshouldbe the same throughoutthe areaofthatCorporation. This ensuresthateveryCouncillor electedfromaparticularward in theCorporationis therepresentativeofand is elected by equal number of persons or population. Theiefoie, demarcationexercisewheneverundertaken,whichis requiredand mandated under sub-section(6) to Section3on completionof each census, should ensure that each ward consistsof equal number of people/population. In otherwords,on delimitationbeingundertaken,the areaand sizeofthe ward Page 19of 38 IV.P. (C) No. I29I/20J7+connectedmatters can undergoachange. Dependanton increaseor decreasein the sizeofthe populationin the earlierward/wards,areaofthe ward need not be the same alter the delimitation. Sub-section(2) to Section5is of some importance and statesthat the delimitationexerciseshall determinenumberof wards; areaofwards;tire wards in whichseatsshallbe reservedfor the Scheduled Castes;wards in which seats shall be reservedfor women and; the manner in which seats will be rotatedunder sub-sections(6) and (8) of Section3. Thus every time delimitation in undertalten, the wards, their size and number,and thewardsreservedfor ScheduledCastesand womenhaveto be specifiedand indicated.

¶22The Act, therefore, provides for three kinds of reservations. Resei-vationfor ScheduledCastes; reservationfor women in the General category, which cannot be less than 50% of the total seats for General categoryand reservationof seats forWomen in ScheduledCastes category whichcannotbe lessthan 50% oftheseatsreservedfor ScheduledCastes.

¶23In the present cases, there is no dispute or challenge as to the percentageof seats which have to be reservedfor ScheduledCastes in the threeCorporations.It is undisputedthat20, 15 and II seats out of 104, 104 and 64 seats have to be reservedfor ScheduledCastes in NDMC, SDMC and EDMC, respectively. The disputeand the issue raised is pertainingto whieh ward should be declared as reserved for ScheduledCastes and foi women. Reservation of Wards for Schedule Castes

¶24We would first take up the issuewith regardto reservationofwards for ScheduledCastes. As noticedabove,the notificationdated6 February, , W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connectedmatters ^ 2017, reserves wards based upon the highest percentage of Scheduled Castespopulationin the wards in the descendingorder in each of the three Corporations.

¶25Ifwe examinethe said basis or preceptfor reservation,it isperse and ex facie reasonableand fair. In fact, it would be in consonancewith the principlesof reservationapplicableto the AssemblyConstituencyin terms of Section38 ofthe GovernmentofNationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhiAct, 1991. The said Sectionstatesthat reservationofAssembly Constituencies for Scheduled Castes shall be on the basis of the Scheduled Castes population in a particular constituency. In other words. Assembly Constituencieswith the highestScheduledCastepopulationwould be given preferencefor reservationoverthosewith lowerproportion. The contention of the petitioner,however,is that this principleor preceptis differentfrom the principleor precept which was adopted for reservationof Scheduled Castewards inthe 2007 and 2012 notifications.Inthe 2007notification,the criteria adopted was with reference to the highest number of Scheduled Castes population in the Assembly Constituencyin the descendingorder with a further stipulation that two wards in each Assembly Constituency/segmentswould be reserved for Scheduled Castes. In the 2012 notification, the reseiwation was again based upon ratio of the ScheduledCastespopulationin each Assembly.Constituencyin descending order,subjectto reservationofonly one ward withhighestScheduledCaste populationin each Assemblysegment.

¶26It may be interestingto notethatthe preceptor criteriaadoptedby the 2007 and 2012 notificationswas challengedin this Court primarilyon the c^round that the ratio of the ScheduledCastes populationin the Assembly to IV.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connecte(lmatters Page21 of38 segments was not rational and a reasonable basis as election'of the Councillorswas ward-wise. Assembly Segments or Constituencieswere not relevant for election from the wards to the Corporations.Another contentionraised was regardingrotationof the reservedseats for it was allegedthatthe 2012 notificationhad failedto givefull and fair recognition to lotationofseats as requiredhy Article243T of the Constitutionand the fourth provisoto sub-section(6) to Section3and provisoto suh-section(8) to section 3 of the Act.

¶27The writ petitionschallengingthe 2007 and 2012 notificationswere dismissedfor severalreasons,butprimarilyon the groundthatit was not for the Court or the petitionersthereinto fix aparameteror criteriato decide which ward should be reserved for Scheduled Castes or women. The contentionthat the reservationbased upon the percentageof Scheduled Castespopulationin the AssemblySegmentor Constituencywas irrational and illogicalwas rejectedfor.reasons.setout in the twojudgments. The said judgments, however, do not hold that the ratio of the population in AssemblySegmentsor Constituencywould'bethe rightor the only method or criteria to determine or decide which ward should be reserved for Scheduled Castes. This is not the ratio of the said decisions as was contended by the petitioners.The principle or percept to be applied for determiningwhich ward/seatshould be reservedis for the Governmentto decide. Courts do not testthe wisdomofthe authoritiesor appropriateness ofthe criteriaadoptedwhileexercisingthe limitedpowerofjudicialreview in such matters.Comparativemeritofthe optionsavailablecannotbe made the subjectmatterofjudicialreview.The preceptor the principleappliedin the notificationcan be challenged on the grounds and reasons as weie W.P. (C) No. ]291/2017+coiinecteclmatters enunciated and settled in Hem Raj Arya and Ors. Vs. Election Commission,Delhi &Ors. 1995 (32) DRJ 231, which had dealt with the 1993/1994notificationand had upheld the same, recordingthe following ratio "(14)We are ofthe viewthatsinceno malafideson thepartofthe respondentshave been pleaded or proved in adoptingthe stated method of reservationof seats, it is not for this Court to go into the minute detailsofthe manner ofreservationparticularlywhen the Court is neitherconceivedwith any statutoryformulawhich had to be appliedto testthe correctnessofthe methodadoptednor any precisefool proofmathematicalformulacan be spelt out for the said purpose. The method adopted for reservationof wards cannotbe struck down merely becauseanothermethodwould be more fairer,scientificor logical.The courtshouldinterfereonly if the impugned action is patently arbitrary, unconsciouslyunfair, discriminatoryor malafide, which as already noted, is neither pleadednor proved.In that view ofthe matterwe do not find any groundto interfere.There is no meritin the petitionand the same is accordinglydismissed.No costs."

¶28This principle was reiterated by a single Judge in the case of RameshDutta (supra)inthefollowingwords:- "38. Accordingly, I hold that these writ petitions are maintainable. I also hold that there is no statutory requirement for disclosingthe mannerofallotmentof seats reservedfor the Scheduled Castes or women in the notifications issued under Section5(2) of The DMC Act. However,such a mannermust be discernible from the records of the Central Government (includingits delegates).The manner must be reasonableand not arbitrary or discriminatory or mala fide. The manner indicated in the presentcase of identifyingseats reservedfor scheduledcastes based on the twin criteriaof rankiiigseats in decreasingproportionof populationand limitingthem to-not morethantwo per assemblysegmentscannotbe interferedwith as it is neither arbitrarynor discriminatorynor malafide.Even W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connecte(lmatters Page23 of38 the criterionof allottingevery third seat from the list ofwards arranged as per the serial numbers of the wards for women cannot be questioned. However, as indicated above, the impugned notificationof 17.02.2007has gone wrong mnot uniformly applyingthese criteria.The same is, therefore,set aside."

¶29Similarly,in Vikas (supra),aDivisionBench of this Court had held that the SEC had carriedout aconsideredexercise,which by no stretchof imagination can be said to be irrational or arbitrary. The methodology adopted cannot be struck down. When the methodologyadopted by the SEC cannot be faulted, there would be no merit in the challenge.It was pertinentlyobserved:- "37. It is our view that the SEC has carriedout a considered exercisewhich by no stretchof imaginationcan be said to be irrational or arbitrary so that it would fall foul of Ramesh Diitta's case (supra) It has already been explained that the methodologyadopted in Ramesh Dutta's case (supra) for the electionsin the year 2007 alonewas not to be implementedfor all luture elections and that the exercisethen carried out was rational and reasonablethough there may have been flaws in the implementationaspect.The SEC was, thus, withinits right to adopta modifiedformula."

¶0We would now deal with the contentionof the petitionersthat the SEC has violated the principleof rotation of Scheduled Castes seats as stipulatedby the fourth proviso to sub-section(6) to Section3of the Act and Article 234T of the Constitution. The petitionerssubmit that in five AssemblyConstituencies/Segmentsin the threeCorporations,threeor more wards are reservedfor the ScheduledCastes as per the 6"^ February,2017 notification. Our attention was specifically drawn to the Assembly ConstituencySultanpurMajra, which has ScheduledCastes populationof J W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connectcdmatters Page24 of38 '

44.36% and all four wards in the said Assembly Constituencyhave been reserved. It was highlightedthatin SultanpurMajraAssemblyConstituency there is not even asingleward in which aGeneralcandidatecan contestthe Municipalelections.Thus, no one from 55.64% of the total populationin this Constituencycan stand for electionin any ofthe wards. Anotherchart filed before us indicatesthat as per the 6"' February,2017 notification,20 seats/wards reserved for Scheduled Castes"in NDMC would fall in 14 AssemblyConstituencies,15 reservedseats/wardsfor ScheduledCastes in SDMC would fall in 10 AssemblyConstituenciesand 11 seats reservedfor Scheduled Castes in EDMC would fall in 5 Assembly Constituencies. In other words, 46 seats/wardsreservedfor ScheduledCastes under the three Corporationswould fall in 29 Assembly Constituencies.Reference was made to the 2012 notification, wherein 46 reserved seats for Scheduled Castes were fallingin46 differentAssemblyConstitueneies.

¶31We do not find any merit in the said contentions.The core of the contention raised by the petitioners is with reference to the Assembly Constituencyor Segments. We are not dealingwith electionsto the Delhi LegislativeAssemblyand, therefore,ifthe SEC has not adoptedand applied and taken the AssemblyConstituency/Segmentsas the basis,they cannotbe faulted. The fact that in the 2007 and 2012 notifications, percentage of populationin Assembly Segments and reservationbased upon one or two wards in Assembly Segments was followed cannot be a justificationor ground to strike down the 6"^ February, 2017 notification. In fact, it has been urged and arguedwith meritthatthe 6"^ February,2017 notificationis an improvementand refinementover the 2007 and 2012 notifications.Each ward is a distinctand a separatearea from which a Councilloris elected. W.p. (C) No. 1291/2017+coimectedmatters Page25 of38 -4. This is the unit with which we are concerned. Populationin the ward and the percentageof the ScheduledCastes populationin the ward is abetter and more satisfactorymethod to determinewhich of the wards should be reserved. Reservationbaseduponthe populationofScheduledCastesin the Assembly Segment may have been upheld in the litigationsin 2007 and 2012, but this does not mean that tlierecould not be any third or abetter method of resei-vatlon. There is no embargoor bar in Article243T or the Act which prohibitsor bars the authoritiesfrom engagingthemselvesand undertaking an exercise to improve and better upon the earlier principle/criteria.We can and wouldappreciateeveryattemptto evolveand improvethe reservationcriteria.... The SEC has given good and validreasons as to why they have now adopted the principle of Scheduled Caste population mthe wards in descendingorderto reservethe wardsfor ScheduledCastescandidatesand not follow the earlier criteria of the •Schedule Caste population in the AssemblyConstituency.In.the-200.7and 2012 elections,therewerefour (4) wards in each of the 69 Assembly Constituencies/Segments.Thus, the numberofwards in each AssemblyConstituencywas identicali.e.-four(4). Populationof each ward was 40,000. This is not the position after the delimitationorder dated 17^'^ January,2017. The numbersof wards in each AssemblyConstituencyvai7 between3to 7and are not uniformlyfour (4) in number. Each ward today has apopulationof approximately60,000. Earlierthe populationof each ward was about 40,000. The area of each earlierward had to be re-drawnand increasedor decreased,for growth of populationin the old wards was not uniform and was different. This exercisewas undertakenbasedupon the 2011 Censusand withthe help and W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+coiwectedmatters assistance of data, satellite maps etc. provided by Geospatial, Delhi. Therefore, the ward area in 90% of the wards has undergone a change. ! Further, the serial number given to the wards has also changed. New ' numbershave beengiven,asperthe criterianoted below.This aspectwould be of significance when we examine the question of rotation of wards for reservation for Scheduled Castes or women. -T, '

¶33Coming to mandate of rotation, we feel that the said principle is not I violated by the 6"' February, 2017 notification.Whenever a delimitation exercise is carried out in terms of sub-section (2) to Section 5, the wards change and the reserved wards have to be specified. Sub-section 6 to Section3 of the Act mandatesdelimitationexerciseafter eveiy census.This delimitation must account for shift and movement of Schedule Caste ' populationfrom one ward to the other. In the present delimitationexercise, a new and differentcriteriawas ration^ly applied to demarcatethe wards, and also to identify the reserved wards for the Scheduled Castes. We do not ^ think that there is any bar or prohibitionin'theAct or Article243T of the ' Constitutionon adoptingor applyinga new methodto identifywhich ward should be reserved.

¶34As already held above, there can be always improvementon the earlier principle or precept. Further, it would be incorrect to hold that there is no rotation of the ScheduledCastes wards or there has been bunching. , The argumentof bunchingis fallaciousfor the reason it proceedsas if the Assembly Constituency is the defining criteria. This is not correct and is not mandatedby the High Court in RamesliDiitta(supra)or Vikas (supra). Further, as noticed above, the reservedseats,in the three Corporationsare spread over 29 differentAssemblySegments. In fact, in the 2007 election, f ' yy.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connecte(!matters Page27of38 the reserved seats for the ScheduledCastes would have been spread and divided in only 23 AssemblySegments.(In 2007, two seats/wardsin each Assembly Segment with the highest Scheduled Caste population in descendingorderwere resei-ved). !

¶35There is a distinctionbetweenSection5 (2) and sub-sections(6) and

(8) ofSection3ofthe Act. Section5(2) deals,withthe notificationwhichis -V issued after delimitationexercise is undertaken. On each occasionwhen ' delimitationexerciseis undertaken,clauses (c) and (d) to sub-section2 to I section 5 require| that reservation of wards for Scheduled Castes and women should be made. Clause (e)"of sub-section(2) to Section5 of the Act states that at the time of delimitation exercise, the authorities will also prescribethe methodofrotationb:future electionstill anotherdelimitation exerciseis undertakenor otherwisechangesare made. Principleof rotation ' would only apply afterthe firstelectionis held postthe delimitationorder.

¶36We would acceptthe argumentthatwhileconductingthe delimitation exercise and fixing the reserved wards, the authorities should take into ' ' account and consider the wards or seatkwhieh were earlier resei-ved,for this , is the intentbehindArticle243T and sub-sections(6) and (8) of Section3, and Section 5 (2) of the Act. The provisionrequires that there should be shift or ehange of the reserved wards and these should not remain static. This aspecthas been duly accountedfor and taken into considerationin the delimitationorderdated 6"^ February,2017 underSeetion5(2) ofthe Act. '

¶37In view of the aforesaiddiscussion,we rejectthe challengemade by the petitioners to the notification dated 6"^ February, 2017, reserving diflbrentwards on the basisofpercentageof ScheduledCastespopulationin I the wards in descendingorder.This test/criteriacannotbefaultedand struck IV.p. (C) No. 1291/20!7+connecte<lmatters P"8e28 of38 X clown.It is an improvementand refinementon the earliercriteria,whichhad takenAssemblyConstituencies/Segmentsas thebasis. Separate Notifications

¶38One of the petitionershad raised the contentionthat two separate notificationscannotbe issuedunder Section5(2) dealingwith clauses (a) and (b) and then clauses(c) and (d). It was urgedthatthe notificationdated 13"' January,2017 deals with clauses(a) and (b) of Section5(2), whereas the notificationdated 6"' February,2017 deals,with clauses (c) and (d) of Section5(2) of the Act. The contentionis only to be noted and rejected. There is no such stipulationin sub-section(2) to Section5and we would not like to infer any such,restriction. Section-6of the Act empowers the Corporationwith the previous approval of the Governmentfrom time to time by order in the Official Gazette, to alter or amend any order made under Section 5. Violationofthe directionsand statementsrecordedin ViUas(supra)

¶39Similarly,we would reject the' contentionbased upon the statement made by the Standing Counsel of the Governmentof NCT of Delhi as recorded in the judgment in Vi/cas (supra). The relevant portion of the judgmentto whichour referencewas drawn,reads:-. "31. We had posed aspecificquery to learnedcounselfor the SEC as to whether in future apart from rotationofseats for women it was envisagedthattherewouldalso be rotationofseatsreservedfor SC categoiv.LearnedStandingCounselfor the GNCTD,Mr. Najmi Waziri, appearingon behalfof the SEC categoricallystated in tie affirmative.We may note at this stagethatthe pleaofthe petitioners that ifdata of 2011 is available,the next electionwould be held on the basis ofCensusof2011 and, thus, differentpopulationratios in differentAssembly Constituencies/wardsmay come into play but Page 29 of3S f-V.R (C) No. 129I/20I7+coiinecte(lmatters that in our consideredview, is adifferentmatter.... I ' xxxxx In the present electionwe face aprospectof three separate MunicipalCorporations.The wardshave been divided threeCorporations.Differentpossibilitieswere examinedas to ho policy implementedkeepingmmind S twSi prindple,i.e, areas wherethere is agreaterpopulationof SC should be reservedseats/wardsand each Assemblyshould not tLn two resotvedward. It .s tot he second obiective has not been achieved. In so fai as the obiective is concerned, there are cases where a particularward " . SX greater pereeittageof SC populationwould have been reserved while another ward having more SC populationh^ n been reservedbut that is on accountofachangedformulaweie a larger spread of populationhas been taken into account, i.e, population of SC in an Assembly ^ arrange the Lnstituency in a descending order on the basis of the b population Such SC populationfor an Assemblysegmentis in tur baLd on the totallingof the SC and the total ward Thus, the ward remains the unit and it is Assemblysegmenthas becomeaunit. However,in order,to achieve a greater spread, the methodology under challenge has been adopted We may also note anotheraspectarisingfrom the rotation . ofseats whichwill takeplacenot only ofthe womencandidatesbut alsoofthe SC candidatesas has beenassuredby the counselfor "e SEC before us qua the future eleetions. These would e consonancewith the 4"" proviso to sub-section(6) to Section3o_ thesaid Act Printoutsofthe slidesannexedto thecounteraffida giting dffierentoptions for reservationseek to concludethat to first system achievedtire twin objectiveof spreading*e seats throughoutthe Corporationjurisdiction f ^ while on the other hand the secondsystemensures only those wards having highest SC populationcan be reserved in AC and specificCorporationwhilethe thirdsystemleadsto bunchingofSC , seats." The statementsrecordedhave not beenviolated,for tore is rotationofseat W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+coiinecte(lmatters A, as the areaofwardshas undergoneachange. Physicaldemarcationofabout 90% wards has been modifiedor changed.Further,the statementwouldnot bar or prohibitthe authoritiesfrom undertakingthe delimitationexercisein terms ofsub-section(6) to Section3and Section5ofthe Act. Paragraph31 ofthe judgmentin the case of Vikas (supra)noticesand acknowledgesthat the next elections,due in 2017 wouldbe on the basis ofCensusof2011 and thus differentpopulationratios in wards or assembly constituency,as the case may be, would come into play and this would be a differentmatter. Paragraph38 acknowledgesand accepts the argumentraised by the SEC, when challengewas madeto the 2012 notificationon the groundthat it had applied the formula of Scheduled, Caste population in the Assembly Segment and not the Scheduled Caste population in the ward. In this context,it was observedthat there wbul'd be rotationof seats not only foi women candidates,but also for the ScheduledCastecandidatesin the foiture elections,for which assurancewas givenby the SEC. Theseparagraphsdo not take the matter forward and would not help us in decidingthe present controversyin favourofthepetitioners.

¶40• However, it would be for the authoritiesto consider notifying the method or manner ofrotationof seats in terms ofclause (e) to Section5(2), when they carry out a delimitation exercise and issue a notificationfor reservationsofwards/seatsfor ScheduledCastes as well as womencandidates. If the manner and method of rotation is specified,it would possiblyprevent disputes and controversiesof this nature and would ensure that theie is proper rotation of reserved seats, which should be encouraged and is requiredunder Article 243T as well as sub-sections(6) and (8) to Section3 W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connectedmatters and. section5(2) ofthe Act. The methodiitdicatedis not final and can be ' always modifiedand changed,if required,as is permittedand allowe y ' Section 6 of the Act. nfthe Noti"-*^.^--t-'edISth Septen.her,2015. 4, Counselfor SomaRani inW.P. (C)No. 1632/2017hadsubmittedthat ' as per notificationdated 18«" September.2015 boundary of award ma 1 corporationshouldbe carvedwithintheboundaryoftherelevantAssembly Constituencyand should not cross it. It was submittedthat mrespecto eightwards,namely.30-N Bawana,31-N PoothKalan,37,NN.lothi,40-N Nithari 51-N Nihal Vihar, 52-S MahavirEnclave.5-E Dallupuraand 8-E ^ Kalyanpuri1there is violation as vide de-limitationexercise,the ward • boundarieshavecrossedintotwo AssemblyConstituencies.We do notfind nny merit in the said contention.Paragraph8(v) in the said writ petition would Indicate that Assembly Constituenciesin which the wards were , locatedhave ehanged. The de-limitatiohnotificationdoes not violatethe order dated 18'" September,2015 that the boundary of the ward in the '" Corporationshouldbe withinthe boundaryofone legislativeconstituency. Area ofeach ward as demarcatedin the de-limitationexercisedoes not fall within the two Assembly Constituencies. The notification dated 18' September,2015 had not stipulatedor stated that the area of the wards cannot be shifted or made part of an. area under another Assembly Constituency. It is acceptedthat the petitionerSomaRani did not file any objection when the draft de-limitation list was published inviting suggestionsand objectionsfrom the public on 9'" September.2016. As ' noted above, almost 700 objections/suggestionswere received and were taken into considerationbefore the final de-limitationorder dated 13 fV.P. (C) No. 129l/20I7+connecte(lmatters Lp January,2017 was published. We shouldnot permitthe petitioner-Soma , Rani-to raise objectionsofthis natureas she had failedto respondor make any suggestion when the de-limitation exercise was in progress and opportunitywas givento the publicto raiseobjections. I^F.SERVATION FOR WOMEN

¶42Not less than 50% seats in .both General and those reserved foi \ ScheduledCastes have to be reserved for women. As per the proviso to ' sub-section(8) to Section 3, General seats reservedfor women should be rotated in differentwards in a manner as the Government,by an order publishedin the OfficialGazette,may decide.

¶43Grievanceof some of the petitionersis that the seats/wardsmthe General and Scheduled Castes category, which were earlier reserved for women in 2007 and 2012, should have been rotated and not reserved for women candidates. In other words, the wards/seats earlier reserved for women should have been specificallymade open to all candidates. In particular,our attentionwas drawn to the January,2012 notificationin respect of reservationof seats for women to point out that in this election seats at SerialNos. 1,3,5 and so on (odd) were reservedfor women in the ScheduledCastes category and seat Nos. 2,.4, 6 and so on (even) were reserved for ScheduledCastes. Similarly,in the General list, every first, diird and fifth (odd) were reservedfor women and every second,fourth and sixth (even)ward was taken as Generalwards. The said odd/eventablehas been followed in the notificationdated 6'^' February,2017 as the first, thiid and fifth number in Scheduled Caste reserved wards are reserved as Scheduled Caste women's seats and every first, third and fifth ward in General/Opencategoryare reservedfor women. , ,, Ptwe 33 of 38 IV.R (C) No. 1291/2017+connecte(lmatters ^ i

¶44We do not find any merit in the said contentionfor severalreasons. As per the Act. not less than 50% of the wards have to be reservedfor women in both Generaland ScheduledCaste categories. Accordingly45 wards,out of 89 Generalwards,have been reservedfor women in SDMC, 27 out of 53 Generalwards have been reservedfor women in EDMC, and 42 out of 84 General wards have been reserved for women in NDMC. Similarly,out of20 seats reservedfor the ScheduledCastesin NDMC, 10 seats have been reservedfor SC women, out of 15 reservedseats for the ScheduledCastesin SDMC,8havebeenreseivedfor SC womenand outof 11 reservedseats for the ScheduledCastesin EDMC.6have beenreserved tor SC women. The contentionofthe'.petitionerrelyingupon mere serial numberand then referringto the notificationdatedzf January,2012 and 6"' February.2017 overlooksthe factthatthe wardnumbershaveundergone achange. The ward numbers,whichwereallocatedand to which'reference is made in the notificationdated 27'" January, 2012 are not in the same seriatimin the notificationdated6'" February,2017.The new ward numbers have been given on the basisofsatelliteimagingand demarcationexercise undertakenby the SEC with the 2011 Census data and help and assistance of Geospatial,Delhi. There is one ward for 60,000 persons.Earliereach ward was for 40,000 persons.Delimitationhas resultedin changeofactual physicalboundariesin 90% of the wards, comparedto-the watds^in the electionheld in 2012. Further,the number of wards in each constituency has undergoneachange in 50% of the Assembly Constituencies.Earlier there were four in each Constituency.Now the number of wards varies between3to 7. New ward numbershave been awardedwitli referenceto W.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connectedmatters ^5^ number of wards in each Assembly Constituencyby giving numbers in seriatim in the clock-wise direction. This pattern has been uniformly followed.The petitionerscould not controvertor challengethe aforestated factual facets.

¶45In the aforesaidlight, it is apparentto us that mere referenceto even or odd numbers in the Generalcategoryand the ScheduledCastescategory for reservationof women does not mitigateagainst rotation,for the ward numbers themselveshave undergoneachange,and are not identicalto the 2012 notification.The SEC has alsojustifiedand giventhe reasonwhy they have taken odd numberfor reservationofwomen. Not lessthan 50% ofthe wards haveto be reservedfor womeninthe two categories.

¶46Counselappearingfor the petitionerRamvirVats in WritPetition(C) No. 1906/2017 had submitted that total of 114 wards in the General category were reserved in the 2012 and 2017 elections in the three Corporations. There is rotationor change in wards reservedfor women in Generalcategoryin 51 wards,whereasthere is no changeor rotationin 63 wards. In 2007 elections33% seats were reservedfor women. 34 General wards reserved in 2007 have continuedto remain reserved for women in 2017 elections.

¶47The aforesaiddata would show that there has been rotationof seats reservedfor womenin the Generalcategorythoughall seats/wardsreseiwed in the last election for women in the General category, if we go by the names of wards, have not been de-reservedor made open to all. However, this would not, in our opinion,be good and sufficientreason to quash the notilication dated 6'" February, 2017. Firstly, the ward areas have undergone a change and mere reference to the ward names would be IV.P. (C) No. 1291/2017+connecte(lmatters ! deceptive,when we decide the questionof rotationof wards reservedfor women. The argument loses much of its force as the area of 90/o of the wards has undergoneachange. De-limitationexercisewas carriedoutwith twin-fold criteria and objective.Each ward should have apopulationof about 60000 and the ward should be located within"one Assembly Constituencyand not overlap. When the said intricateand trickyexercise was undertalcen,there were number of options available to the SEC to demarcatewards which would be reserved for women. Each option had positive and negative facets. The selection of the option was after an elaborateexercisewith discussionand consultationwith the stakeholders, i.e. politicalparties,membersofthe publicetc.. who were asked for their suggestions.

¶48It may be truethatin somecases,likeDabriWardNo. 305.thereis no change in the ward limits/areaand the ward was also earlierreservedfor women in the 2012 electionsas is the case set up by Harsh VardhanTyagi in Writ Petition(C) No. 2440/2017.'The reason is that anew criteriaor method for reservation has been followed vide notification dated 6"' February,2017. Whenthe new methodwas applied,it is possiblethatsome wards, which were earlier reserved and had not undergoneachange in area/demareationwould remain reservedfor women. This by itselfwould notbe agroundto strikedownthe notification.The requirementin law is to reseivenot less than 50% seatsfor women. Ifthis is theposition,'thensome wards which were reservedearlierwould continueto remainreseivedeven in the secondelection. The SEC has not followedthe criteriaof complete rotation of wards, i.e. the wards which were earlier reservedfor women being de-reservednow and the wards unreservedbecomingreserved for W.P. (C) No. I29I/20I7+co)inectedmatters "() women. They have followedadifferentcriteria,which we find is just,fair • and reasonable.The notificationdated 16"'February,2017 cannotbe faulted • and rejectedon thesaid test.

¶49One can alwaysarguethatabetteror more appropriatemethodcould have been adopted for reseiwationof wards for women keeping in mind ; rotationofseats. However,eachmethodor criteriaadoptedwouldhave its Y ' advantagesand drawbacks.Sometimeswhat is perceivedas abetteroption may have and createdifficultiesand problemson implementation.Theseare complex and difficult matters in which the 'experts' have to be given latitude and play in the joints. In the presentcase, the aforesaid'exercise was carried out after wide' discussion and consultation with the representativesof recognisedpolitical parties and others. The political parties have not thought it appropriate to challenge and question the notificationdated 6"' February, 2017.,:tlearlythey are satisfiedwith the reservationformula, includingthe rotationofseats reservedfor women. It ' will not be appropriateand properto questionthe reservationnotification and the precept or criteriaprescribed,at the behestof handful ofpersons, who ar best claim that they have a better or more logical method of reservationfor women as it would result in rotationof ahigher numberof > seats. It couldbe wrongand fallaciousto acceptthe saidsubmission.

¶50Thus, we conclude that based upon 2011 Census data and the responses and suggestionsmade, achange was made in the criteria for identifyingwards which should be reserved for ScheduledCastes. The criteria applied is that the highest propo^don^of populationin the ward ' withinthe geographicalareaofthe shouldbe reserved. This list of wards was made in descendingorder. To ensurethat not less than 50% W.P. (C) No. I2<)I/20I7+connecte<lmatiers wards in the three Corporationsare reservedfor women in the Scheduled Castesand Generalcategories,wards at SerialNo. 1, 3, 5and so on (odd) vvi® r^erved. The requirementofrotationis not violated,for the area of the wards in 90% ofthewaidsand wardnumbershaveundergoneachange. The mandateofSection5(2)ofthe Acthas beenfollowed.

¶51In view of the aforesaidposition, we do not find any merit mthe present writ petition for we find that the SEC has followed arational criterion in the de-limitationexercise in reservation of wards for the Scheduled Caste population as well as for women candidates in both General wards and wards reserved for ScheduledCastes. The criterion adopted is after wide consultationand discussionwith the stakeholders, includingpoliticalpartiesand membersofthe public. Thereis no violation ofthe principleofrotationofseatsas stipulatedin sub-section(6) and (8) of Sections3and sub-section(2) to Section5ofthe Act and Article243T of the Constitution.

¶52With the aforesaid observations;die writ petitions are dismissed, withoutany order as to costs. MARCHX^ , 2017 NA/ssn PKP. (C) No. 1291/2017+connectedmatters (SANJIVKHANNA) JUDGE (CHAJ^DER-SHEldffAR) JUDGE

$' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C^ 2184/2017 Reservedon : 17^*^March,2017 Dateof decision;23^'^March,2017 AJAYJUYAL Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Rana, Ms. Mansi Bajaj Ms. Aarti Bhalla & Ms. Jayashree, Advocates versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ( NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkama, Standing Counsel«with-Mr.,.SiddharthaNagpal, Advocates for..<StatetEleHion^IConirnission with Mr. Girish Pandey,'^eputy,Secr%ry-. coRAM: a \ ^ HON'BLEMRi;JUSTICESA3^JIVKHANNA HON'BLEMR. JUSTICEfcHANDERSHEimAR SANHVKHANNA,J.: ' For detailed order see W.P'.''I^G)"N().1291/2017, fVe the Citizens throughItsSecretaryVs. UnionofIndia&Ors.,pronouncedtoday. MARCH 23'^^2017 NA / (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (CHANDEfUSHEKHAR) JUDGE $- :1: + IN THE HIGH COURl OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION ICIVILI NO. 1291/2017 Reservedon : 17"^March,2017 Date of decision: ^'^^March, 2017 WE THE CITIZENS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Petitioner Through: Mr. BarunKumarSinha,Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Rishabh Sahu & Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocates for respondent No.l Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Mr. RishabhJaitiey, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Standing' Counsel with Mr. Siddhartha .Nagpal, Advocates for State Election Commission with Mr. Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary. Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate for SDMC Mr. G.D. Mishra-,Advocate for EDMC W.P.(CI 1632/2017 SOMA RANI Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Sunil Nagar, Mr. Vijay Kasana & Ms. S. Bushra Kazim, Advocates versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Mr. Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocates for State Election Commission with Mr., Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Mr. RishabhJaitiey, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Kavindra Gill, Advocate for respondent No;3 W.P. (C) No. !29]/2017+connecte(lmatters Page I of38 W.p.ro 1710/2017 i^iTTRHASHSONI Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Mr.Aslam Ahmed&Mr. SumantaKumar,Advocates versus _ , ^ UOIANDORS • ht stnLe Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Mr. SiddharthaNagpai, Advocates for State Election Commissionwith Mr. Girish Pandey,DeputySecretary Mr. S.K. Sethi & Ms. Dolly, Advocates tor respondentNo.2 Mr. G.D. Mishra,AdvocateforEDMC W.PTCt 1670/2017 M.NAGARAJAN Through: Mr.' A. Maitri & Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar,. Advocates versus STATEELECTIONCOMMISSION&ORS Respondents Through: Mr; Suineet Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Mr. SiddharthaNagpai, Advocates for State Electioh Commission with Mr. Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary. Mr. SanjoyGhose, ASC with Mr. RishabhJaitley, Advocate for GNCTD W.P.rCt 1906/2017 RANVIRVATS Petitioner Through: Mr. SanjeevKumar,Advocate versus UNIONOF INDIAAND ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate tor respondentNo.1 Mr. G.D. Mishra,AdvocateforEDMC Mr. RakeshMittal,Advocatefor SDMC Mr. SanjoyGhose,ASC with Mr. RishabhJaitley, Advocate for GNCTD W.P. (C) !^o. I29I/20I7+coniiectedmatters Page2of38 W.P.CO 1978/2017 HINDU-MUSLIMJANKALYANSAMITI(REGD) Petitioner Through: Mr. Alok Shukia,Advocate versus THE COMMISSIONERSTATEELECTIONCOMMISSIONNCT OF DELHIAND ORS , Respondents Through: Mr. Sumeet, Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Mr. Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocates for State Election Commission with Mr. Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary. Mr. Uttam Dutt & Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocates for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Ms. Namisha Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. SanjoyGhose, ASC with Mr. RishabhJaitley, Advocate for GNCTD W.P.rCI 2017/2017 SANJEET SINGH DABAS Petitioner Through: Mr; Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate versus STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Mr. Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocates for State Election Commission with Mr. Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Mr. Kapil Choudhary, Advocates for respondent No.2 W.P.CCI 2106/2017 HARISH CI-IANDRA DHUPAR Petitioner Through: Mr. G.