According to Section 10 of Delimitation Act of 2002,
The Commission shall cause each of its orders made to be published in the Gazette of India and the Official Gazettes of the States concerned and simultaneously cause such orders to be published at least in two vernacular newspapers and publicised on radio, television, and other possible media available to the public.

Upon publication in the Gazette of India, every such order shall have the force of law and shall not be called in question in any court.

Surrounding the debates on delimitation there has been the question of whether the judiciary should intervene and review delimitation. This has surfaced at various points in the history of post-independent India.

And according to Article 329(a),
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;

The debate over whether the judiciary should intervene in the delimitation process has arisen multiple times in post-independent India.

The original Draft Constitution of 1948 did not include any provision on this matter. However, in 1949, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar proposed adding Article 329A to the Constitution's chapter on Elections. He introduced this provision on June 16, 1949, and the Assembly accepted it without any debate.

In 1952, during the early days of India's first Lok Sabha, the Delimitation Commission Bill was introduced as one of the first agenda items. The original version of the Bill granted the Delimitation Commission the 'force of law.' However, after a review by a Joint Select Committee, a clause was added stating that the Commission's orders 'shall not be called in question in any Court.'

When the revised Bill was discussed in Parliament, little attention was given to the provision that prevented courts from reviewing delimitation orders. However, prominent figures like Hukum Singh, Akthar Hussain, and R. Velayudhan, in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, emphasized the importance of delimitation. They suggested that Parliament should have the power to discuss, amend if necessary, and ratify the orders before they became law.

Some members were concerned about granting unelected members of the Commission the authority to make final decisions on delimitation. Others, however, opposed giving Parliament the final say, fearing that dominant political parties could misuse this power for their own benefit. Despite these concerns, none of the suggestions were accepted. When the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952, was passed, it gave the Commission the final authority over delimitation decisions and exempted its orders from judicial review.

The debates in the Constituent Assembly and the parliamentary proceedings of India's first Lok Sabha reveal that while there were concerns about the influence of dominant political groups and the executive in the delimitation process, judicial review was never taken into consideration. There was a clear and deliberate effort to keep the courts out of the process, and this decision received broad support. However, the specific reasoning behind this exclusion was never explicitly stated.

Later in the notable case, Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission &Ors (1967), the court upheld the exemption of the orders made by the delimitation commission from the judicial review and reasoned out that,
"There seems to be a very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court."

Likewise, more recently in 2023, in the case Haji Abdul Gani khan v. Union of India, the apex court grappled with this question when political parties and civil society approached the apex court challenging the delimitation of constituencies in Jammu and Kashmir, arguing that it would 'diminish the political voices of the minorities in the affected areas.'

The Supreme Court ruled that there was nothing "illegal" about the constitution of the Delimitation Commission or its actions in the Union Territory. It clarified that Article 170 applies only to State Legislatures and cannot be extended to Union Territories. Instead, the governance of Union Territory assemblies falls under laws made by Parliament, as per Article 239A. The court further held that the delimitation exercise, which reorganized territories into 90 new constituencies, was fair and could not be declared illegal.

Judicial interference in electoral matters can sometimes lead to overreach, encroaching on the authority of other institutions and undermining federal and democratic principles. When courts intervene in politically sensitive matters like elections, there is a risk of them appearing partisan, which can weaken public trust in the judiciary's impartiality. Additionally, judicial intervention may cause delays in the electoral process, compounding the already existing issue of delayed justice in India's legal system. If people are allowed to challenge every government decision in court, the legislature may lose its ability to decide on political matters independently.

At the same time, lack of judicial review could allow unchecked government actions that violate political rights, particularly those of minority groups. A delimitation scheme designed to reduce their political influence could go unchallenged, leading to unfair representation. Striking a balance between judicial non-interference and judicial oversight is crucial to ensuring both government accountability and the protection of democratic rights.

In India, this issue was addressed and recently decided in a case, Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India (23rd July, 2024), the supreme court disapproved the view of Gujarat High court which dismissed the delimitation petition in the context of article 329 (a), it held that article 329 restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of delimitation laws, it cannot be construed as imposing bar on judicial review for action of the delimitation exercise. The court held that:
"There is nothing that precludes them to check the validity of orders passed by delimitation commission orders against the touch stone of the constitution. If a delimitation commission order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable with the constitutional values, then the court can grant appropriate remedies to rectify the situation".

The supreme court opined that completely barring judicial intervention would leave citizens without any forum to plead their grievances which would be contrary to the court's duties and the principle of separation of powers.

Courts have been firm to state that they would intervene in cases of gerrymandering particularly when it leads to rights violations.