Supreme Court Questions Centre on Delimitation Delay in Northeastern States

GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern at the prolonged delay by the Union government in conducting delimitation exercises in Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur.

The Centre defended its stance, suggesting that inaction resulted from the sensitive socio-political dynamics of this region of the northeast.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has underlined the statutory requirement of delimitation and expressed dissatisfaction with the delay, despite a 2020 Presidential order that lifted the deferment on account of improved security conditions.

The court drew attention to the fact that post the rescission of the deferment order, the Election Commission of India was statutorily obligated under Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to undertake the process of delimitation itself.

"Once the President rescinds the notification, the Election Commission cannot choose inaction. The process must commence immediately. What steps have been taken in the last four years?" the bench questioned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, representing the Centre.

Observing that delimitation had been completed in Assam under the very same order of 2020, no such effort was undertaken in the other three. The court pointed out that the situation remained far from normal in Manipur, where violence broke out in May 2023 and continues, and therefore called for different assessments of preparedness.

You cannot treat all states as a collective when examining preparedness. While Manipur is lagging, what stops effective action in Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh?" the bench questioned.

ASG Nataraj defends the delay as entangled in the complexity of the region. "The northeastern states are extremely sensitive, and we wish to avoid any escalation of tensions," he said. He added that consultations were ongoing in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland where local opposition and tribal agitations remain important hurdles.

However, the bench firmly reminded the Centre of its legal obligation: "It is a statutory mandate. If conditions have improved, the process becomes unavoidable under Section 8A. Delimitation cannot be indefinitely deferred."

Advocate G Gangmei, who represented the petitioners, pleaded that such inaction by the Centre ran against their fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality. They drew attention to the unequal application of the Presidential order of 2020, which eased delimitation in Assam but reserved the three other states.

"The deferment was revoked on all four counts. The government has caused inequality by selectively applying it," Gangmei contended.

Instructed the Centre to share a clear action plan, the court adjourned the case to January 2025. "This is a statutory obligation. Failing to act under Section 8A could lead to legal complications," the bench warned.

Delimitation is the process of redrawing parliamentary and assembly constituencies based on population data governed by the Delimitation Act, 2002, and Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

While the 2020 Presidential order declared conditions adequate for delimitation in all four northeastern states, progress has halted in Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur, hence the present lawsuit brought by the "Delimitation Demand Committee for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Nagaland in North East India."

ALSO READ:

ALSO WATCH: