The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Union government over the long-pending delimitation exercises in Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur, asserting that the process is a statutory mandate and cannot be indefinitely delayed. The issue was raised during a public interest litigation (PIL) hearing seeking directions to ensure the completion of the delimitation process in these northeastern states and Assam.
Background on Delimitation Delay
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar noted that in February 2020, then-President Ram Nath Kovind had rescinded an earlier order that deferred delimitation in the four northeastern states. The rescission came after it was observed that security conditions in the region had improved. However, while the delimitation process was completed in Assam, no action was taken for Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, or Manipur.
Justice Kumar remarked, “Once the President rescinds the notification (deferring delimitation), it is enough for the process to proceed.” The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress, questioning why the government had not initiated steps in the three states over the past four years.
Court’s Questions and Observations
The Court pressed the government for an explanation, with Justice Kumar asking, “What were you doing for four years? What steps have been taken to set the ball rolling?” CJI Khanna further observed, “Once the deferment order is rescinded, the Election Commission cannot delay the process. While we understand the situation in Manipur, what about other states like Arunachal Pradesh? No progress has been made there either.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj argued that the situation in the northeastern states remains sensitive, with local opposition in Arunachal Pradesh cited as one of the reasons for the delay. However, the Court remained unconvinced, emphasizing that such issues should have been addressed since 2020 when the deferment order was lifted.
The Bench stressed the constitutional and statutory nature of the delimitation process, adding, “If Section 12A of the Delimitation Act is not re-notified, it creates complications.” The Court directed the ASG to take instructions from the government and adjourned the matter to January 2025.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The PIL contends that the delimitation process is a constitutional obligation that has been ignored in the northeastern states for over 51 years. The petition highlights that while Assam’s delimitation was completed, the lack of action in the other three states violates the principles of equality and fairness in representation.
The plea also emphasized that delays in delimitation affect the equitable distribution of resources and representation in parliamentary and state legislatures. Petitioners argued that the failure to complete the process undermines the democratic structure and creates a disparity in governance and representation across regions.
Responses and Developments
The Court had sought responses from the Union government, the Election Commission of India, and Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur governments. The petitioners pointed out that during the pendency of the case, Assam underwent delimitation, and the 2024 general elections were conducted based on the revised constituencies. However, no similar efforts have been undertaken in the other states.
In September 2022, the Supreme Court also issued notices on another petition challenging the exclusion of the northeastern states from the delimitation exercise. The Court clarified that while it upheld delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir, the circumstances in the northeastern states are distinct and cannot be used as a comparative basis for exclusion.
Implications of the Case
The Court’s observations and eventual ruling are expected to have significant implications for the northeastern states, where representation in legislative bodies remains based on outdated population data. Delimitation, a process aimed at redrawing boundaries to reflect demographic changes, is critical for ensuring equitable representation and resource allocation.
By holding the Union government accountable, the Supreme Court has reinforced the need for timely action in fulfilling constitutional and statutory duties, especially in regions with unique challenges like the Northeast. The case also underscores the importance of balancing local sensitivities with the democratic imperative of equal representation.
