The gap between legitimacy and political legitimacy can be significant. Supreme Court’s decision upholding the formation of Delimitation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir And the subsequent delimitation exercise is actually in consonance with the law, particularly the constitutional provision which empowers the Parliament to create new states, alter existing states and alter their status and boundaries, as well as Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, However, it would be wrong to see this as giving judicial authority for the political import of redrawing of constituencies in the Union Territory. Most of the political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, which was Union Territory status was downgraded in August 2019, has opposed the commission’s report which has taken the total number of seats to 90 by adding six seats in Jammu division and one seat in Kashmir division. The parties see the exercise as an attempt to undermine the Muslim-majority region’s political and electoral importance and boost prospects. of parties based in Jammu. They consider this as an extension of the project to strip J&K of its status and privileges and reshape its politics for the benefit of the ruling party. This question of legitimacy can be answered by the result of the election to the territorial legislature, if and when one is held. However, the readjustment of boundaries may cast a shadow over that process itself.
The petition challenging the constitution of the Delimitation Commission was filed late, as it was filed after the panel published its draft order. The court rejected its key argument that delimitation is frozen across the country till the first census after 2026, noting that Article 170, which deals with it, applies only to states, not union territories. No. It is also noted that J&K will be governed by its own reorganization law, which allows the 2011 census to be the basis for its delimitation, unlike the rest of the country, where the 2001 census is used for constituency boundaries. was the basis of the final rescheduling. It also rejected the arguments contained in the view that certain provisions of the Reorganization Act were not in consonance with the Constitution, noting that these provisions were not specifically challenged. While the Court may be right in upholding its decision on the basis of the constitution of the Delimitation Panel, the extension granted to it, and the laws in force at present, the assumption is inevitable that the people of Jammu and Kashmir were presented with a fair task. going. Matters related to his political fate, while the core question – the legality of withdrawing his statehood and special status in 2019 – remains undecided.