Supreme Court questions ECI on Delimitation delay in Nagaland

The Supreme Court on November 18 raised critical questions regarding the implementation of the delimitation exercise in the Northeastern states, particularly in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, was hearing a petition that sought the delimitation of constituencies in four states—Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh—following a 2020 Presidential order rescinding the deferment of the exercise in these states.

The petition challenges the delayed action on the delimitation process, despite the President’s order that authorized the Election Commission (EC) to proceed with the exercise. Advocate G Gangmei, representing the petitioners, informed the Court that “the President in 2020 by an order has rescinded the deferment of delimitation in the 4 states,” which means the delimitation process should have already been initiated. “We filed the Writ Petition after two years of the order, 2 years have passed, why isn’t the delimitation taking place? that is the issue,” Gangmei emphasized.

The petition is rooted in Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which allows for the delimitation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Nagaland. Under this section, the President can rescind a deferment order and authorize the Election Commission to conduct the delimitation exercise. The provision, however, states that the exercise cannot commence unless the government deems the conditions in the state conducive.

During the hearing, the bench was informed that, while Assam had commenced the delimitation process in August 2023, no such steps had been taken in the other three states. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Election Commission, explained that the Ministry of Law and Justice had issued specific provisions for Assam, which led to the exercise being carried out there. However, for the four states in question, Singh clarified that only when the government makes a decision, can the EC proceed with the delimitation process.

Justice Kumar questioned this stance, asking, “Where does the Government come in? Once the President rescinds the notification, that is enough.” CJI Khanna added that “the fact that 8A was incorporated was to save you from the situation where you do not want to undertake the delimitation due to disturbed conditions, but that is declassified… you have to undertake the exercise.”

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Natraj, appearing for the Union Government, countered that the recent violence in Manipur makes it “not conducive” for delimitation there, although consultations were ongoing for the other three states. He stressed, “Situation in Manipur might not be conducive, but for other states consultation is going.”

However, the bench disagreed with grouping all four states together. “It would be incorrect to club all the states together in assessing the conduciveness as nothing adverse seemed to happen in Nagaland or Arunachal Pradesh,” the Court noted. Justice Kumar, referring to Section 8A(3), emphasized that the provision mandates that the delimitation process must begin immediately after the rescinding of the deferment order. “As soon as it is rescinded – you have to set the ball rolling, what have you done?”

CJI Khanna instructed the ASG to take further instructions on the government’s course of action, reiterating that the statutory mandate for delimitation must be followed. “The exercise has to be done. Because that cannot be done—it is a statutory mandate, and therefore you have to comply with it.”

The bench will reconvene in January 2025 to continue hearing the matter.

Background of the Petition
The petition challenging the delay in the delimitation process stems from a Presidential order issued on February 28, 2020, which allowed for the delimitation of constituencies in the four Northeastern states. Despite this, a Delimitation Commission was only constituted for Jammu and Kashmir, and the process in the four states has not moved forward. The petitioners argue that the refusal to conduct delimitation in these states violates the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petition also highlights that since the amendment of the Delimitation Act in 2002, no delimitation exercises have been conducted in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, or Nagaland under Section 8A, despite successful parliamentary and assembly elections in these states. It stresses that these states should be treated equally with the rest of India, and the delimitation process should be carried out at the earliest.
The petition has been drafted by Advocate Gaichangpou Gangmei. (With inputs from Livelaw)

MT