Multi-member municipal wards upheld as consistent with Articles 243R and 243S, strengthening reservation-based local representation.

Articles 243R and 243S do not expressly or by necessary implication prohibit multi-member municipal wards, so State legislation enabling more than one councillor from a ward remains within legislative competence. The impugned Gujarat municipal provisions and ward committee rules were held consistent with the constitutional scheme because each councillor from a multi-member ward can participate in the ward committee framework, including chairperson selection. The reservation design under Part IXA was treated as advancing, not defeating, representation of women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The notification dated 04.12.2014 was also found unobjectionable because it related to ward delimitation and reservation, not the separate draft amendment process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution of India prohibit a municipality from having more than one member from a ward; (ii) whether Section 5(3)(iii)(a), Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1994, and Rule 2(b) of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation's Ward Committees Functions, Duties, Territorial Areas and Procedure for Transaction of Business Rules, 2007 are ultra vires Articles 243R and 243S; (iii) whether a multi-member ward negates the empowerment of weaker sections; (iv) whether the notification dated 04.12.2014 was illegal for having been issued before expiry of the objection period to the draft notification dated 27.11.2014.

Issue (i): Whether Articles 243R and 243S of the Constitution of India prohibit a municipality from having more than one member from a ward

Analysis: Article 243R governs the composition of municipalities and provides for direct election from wards, but it does not state that only one member must be elected from each ward. Article 243S concerns the constitution and composition of Wards Committees, and its references to a member representing a ward operate in that limited context. The constitutional text does not create an express or implied bar against the State Legislature providing for multi-member wards. A restrictive reading was rejected in favour of the constitutional scheme as a whole.

Conclusion: The Constitution does not prohibit more than one member from a ward.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 5(3)(iii)(a), Section 29A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards in the City and Allocation of Reserved Seats) Rules, 1994, and Rule 2(b) of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation's Ward Committees Functions, Duties, Territorial Areas and Procedure for Transaction of Business Rules, 2007 are ultra vires Articles 243R and 243S

Analysis: The State Legislature has plenary competence in the field of local government, subject only to express constitutional limitations. The impugned provisions, which permit multi-member wards and regulate ward committees, are not inconsistent with Articles 243R or 243S. The ward committee provisions can operate consistently even where more than one councillor represents a ward, because every such councillor becomes a member of the committee and the chairperson can be chosen among them under the applicable rule.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions are not ultra vires Articles 243R and 243S.

Issue (iii): Whether a multi-member ward negates the empowerment of weaker sections

Analysis: The constitutional scheme of reservation under Part IXA is intended to secure adequate and effective representation for women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Increasing the number of seats in a ward does not dilute that object; rather, it enlarges participation and strengthens representation of reserved categories. The contention that empowerment can occur only through a single-member ward was not accepted.

Conclusion: A multi-member ward does not negate empowerment of weaker sections and instead enhances it.

Issue (iv): Whether the notification dated 04.12.2014 was illegal for having been issued before expiry of the objection period to the draft notification dated 27.11.2014

Analysis: The notification dated 04.12.2014 dealt with determination of wards and reserved seats for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and was on a different subject from the draft amendment notification dated 27.11.2014. The amendment process connected with the draft notification culminated later in the notification dated 15.01.2015. Since the impugned notification of 04.12.2014 was not issued in reference to the draft notification, the objection-period argument failed.

Conclusion: The notification dated 04.12.2014 was not illegal on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional and statutory challenges failed, and the challenge to the election postponement order also did not survive for adjudication in view of subsequent events.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication prohibits a field of State legislation, the State Legislature retains plenary competence; Articles 243R and 243S do not impose a bar against multi-member wards, and the reservation framework under Part IXA is advanced rather than defeated by broader representation.

---