Mizoram MLA to challenge Supreme Court order on ADC-Assembly dual membership
Guwahati A Mizoram MLA has announced that he will file a review petition against a Supreme Court order directing two tribal councils in the State
Guwahati A Mizoram MLA has announced that he will file a review petition against a Supreme Court order directing two tribal councils in the State to restore the prohibition on dual membership. Rasik Mohan Chakma, who represents the Mizo Front in the 40-member Assembly, is an elected member of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC). Rustom Chakma, a social worker based in southern Mizoram’s Lawngtlai, had approached the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court dismissed his petition seeking a bar on dual membership in the Autonomous District Council (ADC) and the Assembly. The High Court held that Articles 101 and 190 of the Constitution of India do not bar a member of an ADC from becoming an MLA.
In its judgment dated July 20, released recently, the Supreme Court said, “all the ADCs ought to be at par for the purpose of barring dual membership”. Directing the Chakma ADC and the Mara ADC to restore the bar on dual membership, the apex court noted that the “Lai ADC still retains the bar against dual membership of the ADC and the Legislative Assembly”. The Mara ADC is spread across southern Mizoram’s Siaha district, while the adjoining Lawngtlai district is divided unequally between Chakma and Lai ADCs. Rasik Mohan Chakma said the Supreme Court’s observation was not factually correct, as the Lai ADC had removed the bar on dual membership of the ADC and the Assembly by repealing its Constitution and Conduct of Business Rules of 2002, in 2010.
“Consequently, the membership in two or more ADCs was barred, not in the Assembly. Petitioner Rustom Chakma concealed this to secure a favourable judgment, and he interfered with the administration of justice,” he said. He said he could not bring the material fact to the notice of the apex court, as the High Court had disposed of the petition at the hearing, after issuing a notice, and he was not given another opportunity to file a written reply. Regarding the holding of an office of profit, which is governed by Article 191(1) of the Constitution, the MLA said only Parliament and the State legislatures have the power to enact laws relating to disqualification on the ground of holding an office of profit.
There have been instances of members of autonomous tribal councils, whether or not under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, simultaneously holding the position of an MLA. They include the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Tuliram Ronghang and Tankeswar Rabha, who head the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and the Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council in Assam, respectively.
The BriefWire