The court asked the petitioner to give representation to the competent authority, which may be inclined to entertain the same. The CJI said: "We will not say we are dismissing the petition."THE RIGHT to vote has nothing to do with delimitation, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday as it refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the 84th and 87th Constitution amendments dealing with delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies.“These are two different things. Right to vote has nothing to do with delimitation,” said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a three-judge bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.The plea, filed by petitioner Nishant Khatri, challenged the validity of the amendments for being violative of the basic structure insofar as they mandated that representation in the Lok Sabha would be based on the 1971 population and in the Vidhan Sabha it would be based on the 2001 population.Khatri, hailing from Jhajjar in Haryana, pointed out that the “original Constitution” said the representation in Lok Sabha would be based on the latest population Census. However, Parliament, by way of these amendments, excluded 70% of Indian citizens who were born after 1971.Citing the case of Gurugram, he said in 1971 it was a village with a population of about 50,000-60,000. Now it’s around 25 lakh, he said, adding that the same is the case with places like Mohali and Noida, which were not in existence in 1971.The CJI asked: “Why do you say they are not being considered?… Whether you go to one constituency or the other (following delimitation), you will not be deprived of the right to vote.”“Nobody can deny you the right to contest elections if you fulfil the requirements under the Representation of the People Act or what the Constitution prescribes. The moment you fulfil those conditions, any delimitation exercise, any SIR, any Census or any such exercise cannot deprive you of your right to contest elections,” Justice Kant said.Story continues below this adJustice Bagchi said, “You can contest from any constituency even if you are not domiciled in that constituency.”The petitioner said, “Political justice as enshrined in the Preamble says one person, one vote, one value. Value of my vote has been decreased. Population has increased.”Justice Bagchi said the “value of the vote may be diluted against the entire population, but when you see federal constitutionalism, the value is not diluted vis-à-vis the states”.The court asked the petitioner to give representation to the competent authority, which may be inclined to entertain the same. The CJI said: “We will not say we are dismissing the petition.”Story continues below this adThe petitioner then urged the bench to allow him to withdraw the plea, which the court permitted.