The Supreme Court on July 11 prima facie disagreed with the legal stand of the Election Commission of India (ECI) that it can only begin the delimitation process in Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh after only getting an authorisation from the Centre.
“It does not appear the Election Commission requires the authorisation of the Government of India,” Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud addressed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre.
Unlike other States, the ECI, and not the Delimitation Commission, have to conduct the delimitation exercise in these four States.
The CJI’s prima facie comment was based on a reading of Section 8A of The Representation of the People Act, 1950. The provision deals with the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur or Nagaland.
Section 8A(1) says that, subject to being satisfied that the conditions were conducive, the President can rescind the deferment of the delimitation exercise in the four States and provide for the conduct of delimitation exercise by the Election Commission.
Section 8A(2) provides that the Election Commission has to start the delimitation process to determine Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies in the four States as soon as the President rescinds the order.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioners seeking delimitation, said the President had rescinded the deferment order way back in February 2020.
“The moment the deferment order is rescinded under 8A(1), then you (Election Commission) have to take steps under 8A(2),” the CJI told advocate Amit Sharma, appearing for the ECI.
Mr. Sankaranarayanan said the petitioners, as of now, were only focussing on the conduct of the delimitation exercise in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
He said the delimitation in Assam was well on its way to completion and there was some connected llitigation pending in Nagaland.
“It is not fair to ask for delimitation now in Manipur considering the conflagration there… So, we are now only concentrating on Arunachal Pradesh,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted. Mr. Sankaranarayanan said the ECI should, however, clarify its stand on conducting delimitation in Arunachal Pradesh.
“The EC is under the impression that somehow this requires clearance from the Union government,” the senior lawyer submitted. Mr. Mehta however advised caution, considering the tense atmosphere in Manipur. He said the court should avert the risk of a “spillover”.
“Anything being done here, should not spill over. Kindly defer the matter for some time,” he requested the court. The Bench asked him to get instructions and adjourned the case to next week.
