No Census, no cut: High Court quashes drop in Panchkula SC seats

More than six months after Scheduled Caste seats in the Panchkula Municipal Corporation were reduced from four to three, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday set aside the reduction. Among other things, the Bench held that such reservation could be determined only on the basis of the Census and not on government databases like the Family Information Data Repository (FIDR).

Quashing the September 4, 2025, notification to the extent of SC seat reduction, the Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur ruled that any change in reserved seats must be preceded by a proper population exercise strictly based on 2011 Census within the reconstituted municipal limits.

The Bench found the State’s method inconsistent and constitutionally impermissible. “On its face, the entire process adopted by the government is contrary to the spirit of Article 243T of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

The petition, challenging the notification primarily on the ground that the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) was reduced from four in the previous elections to three in the upcoming polls, was filed by Usha Rani and others former councillors. Senior counsel D.S. Patwalia and advocate Gaurav Rana contended this was in violation of constitutional provisions and the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act.

The Bench was told that reservation was determined on the basis of the 2011 Census in the last election for the 20 wards of the Panchkula Municipal Corporation, leading to four seats being reserved for Scheduled Castes. The reserved seats were reduced to three after a change in the geographical limits of the Corporation, despite the total number of wards remaining unchanged at 20,

The petitioners argued that this reduction was based on a spot survey and data drawn from FIDR. It was a welfare-oriented, voluntary database, and could not replace the Census, which alone has constitutional sanction for such purposes.

The State, on the other hand, justified the change by pointing to alterations in municipal boundaries, stating that some areas were excluded and others added, resulting in a change in population composition. It maintained that the shift led to a reduction in the proportion of Scheduled Caste population and, consequently, the number of reserved seats.

After hearing rival contentions, the court found contradictions in the State’s own stand. The court observed the State’s counter affidavit stated in one paragraph that a spot survey was conducted after the alteration of boundaries in 2020. It showed a total population of 3,17,476, including 70,679 persons belonging to Scheduled Castes. This translated into 4.45 seats, which were rounded off to four, forming the basis of reservation in the 2020 elections.

The State in the next paragraph said the total population of Panchkula Municipal Corporation’s existing limits based on 2011 Census was 267413, out of which SC population was 41467. It came out to be 15.51 per cent of the total population. It led to allocation of 3.10 seats, rounded off to three.

The court found the dual reliance fundamentally flawed. “On one hand, the State is referring to FIDR for fixation of total number of seats, which remained unchanged as was in the previous Census of 2011. Meanwhile, when it comes to determining the population of the Scheduled Castes, and for the purpose of reduction in seats, they are referring only to the 2011 Census.”

The Bench added it meant that the total number of voters belonging to the Scheduled Castes was based on FIDR, but their reservation was based on the 2011 Census. The Bench held that such an approach violated the constitutional scheme governing local body elections. The court added reservation was required to be based entirely on Census data, even where municipal limits underwent changes.

“The seats could have been re-distributed only on the basis of Census of 2011 by counting the population as per 2011 Census, as per the current geographical limits. Such process might have led to decrease, increase, or no change in the seats to be reserved for the categories belonging to the Scheduled Castes communities, depending upon the population of the current geographical area of Panchkula at the time when the last Census was conducted, i.e., as per the Census of 2011,” the Bench added

Rejecting the reliance on FIDR altogether for this purpose, the court held: “The Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act 2021 could not have been considered at all for the purposes of determining the population of the people belonging to the Scheduled Castes. It had to be done strictly following the mandate of Articles 243P(g) and 243T of the Constitution of India, and since it was not followed, the impugned notification is violative of the Constitution of India”.

Allowing the petition to this extent, the court concluded: “The notification dated September 4, 2025, whereby the number of seats reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes was reduced from ‘four’ to ‘three’, is quashed and set aside, because the reservation could have been applied only and after counting the entire population in the reconstituted Municipal Limits of Panchkula, based on the Census of 2011 and not on Family Information Data Repository.”