This piece highlights the judicial inconsistency in constitutional interpretation that persists at the Apex Court, using three judgments as case studies. First, by examining two recent judgments—Public Interest Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas and Kishore Chhanganlal Rathod—the article illustrates the Supreme Court’s inconsistent application of Article 329, which bars judicial review of delimitation laws. Second, it contrasts the smaller bench’s view in Kishore Chhanganlal Rathod with that of a larger bench in Anoop Baranwal, focusing on how the two judgments addressed judicial propriety. Overall, the piece critiques the Kishore Rathod judgment for disregarding binding precedent, engaging in flawed reasoning, and perpetuating the results-oriented approach characteristic of Panchayati Eclecticism. Continue reading The Harrowing Influence of Panchayati Eclecticism: A Test of Judicial Propriety of Article 329