Today, the Supreme Court of India questioned the government’s delay in the delimitation exercise for Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur during a public interest litigation hearing. The Court emphasized that this process is a statutory mandate, especially after President Kovind rescinded the earlier deferral. The lack of progress raises concerns about electoral fairness in light of upcoming elections.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India raised important questions on Tuesday regarding the long-pending delimitation exercise in the states of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur, asking the Union government why the process had not yet been initiated. This matter came up during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to ensure that delimitation is carried out in these four states, including Assam, which recently completed its delimitation process.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar questioned the delay, despite a statutory mandate for the exercise. The Court was particularly concerned after President Ram Nath Kovind, in February 2020, rescinded an earlier order that deferred the delimitation exercise in Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Assam. This decision was based on improved security conditions in these northeastern states. However, while the exercise proceeded in Assam, no action had been taken for the remaining states.
Justice Kumar emphasized the urgency of the matter, stating,
“Once the President rescinds the notification (deferring delimitation), it is enough.”
The Court questioned the government’s inaction since the rescinding of the order. Justice Kumar asked,
“What were you doing since four years? What have you done to set the ball rolling?”
The Court also pointed out that once the order was rescinded, the Election Commission had no justification for delaying the exercise.
“We get Manipur, but what about other (states)? Arunachal also, nothing,”
CJI Khanna added, expressing frustration with the lack of progress.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), KM Nataraj, who appeared for the government, explained that the situation in the northeastern states is sensitive. In particular, locals in Arunachal Pradesh had allegedly opposed the delimitation. However, the Court was firm in its stance, underscoring that the delimitation exercise is a statutory mandate that cannot be ignored indefinitely.
The Court eventually adjourned the matter, asking the ASG to get further instructions from the government. The Bench stated,
“Exercise has to be done. It is a statutory mandate. If 12A (Delimitation Act) is not re-notified, then you are in difficulty.”
The matter was adjourned to January 2025, giving the government time to respond with a concrete plan.
The PIL under consideration contends that the delimitation process in these four states has not been carried out for over 51 years, making it a constitutional obligation that has long been neglected. In July 2022, the Supreme Court had already sought responses from the Central government, the Election Commission of India, and the state governments of Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh.
During the course of the case, delimitation in Assam was completed, and the 2024 general elections are set to be held based on newly re-drawn parliamentary constituencies. In contrast, the issue remains unresolved for the other northeastern states, leading to growing concerns about fairness and representation.
Read Also: “Former CJI Chandrachud Caused Immense Damage to Legal System”, Says A.P. HRF Member
In a related matter, the Supreme Court had previously issued notice in September 2022 on another petition challenging the exclusion of these four northeastern states from the delimitation process, noting that the situation in these states is entirely different from that of Jammu and Kashmir.
As the 2024 elections approach, the Court’s questioning of the government’s inaction has highlighted the urgent need for action in Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur to ensure that the delimitation process is completed in line with constitutional requirements. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the government will take steps to address the pending exercise and fulfill its legal obligations.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES