Supreme Court Refuses Stay on Delimitation Exercise in Assam, but Considers Challenge to Law

A challenge to the law that allows the Election Commission to make decisions on state and parliamentary seat boundaries without involving the elected representatives of the people has been taken up by the Supreme Court. While refusing to halt the Delimitation exercise in Assam, the court has agreed to examine the issue.

On Monday, the Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, stated that it is not possible to interrupt the ongoing delimitation process at this stage, considering that the delimitation exercise has already begun and a draft proposal was issued on 20 June. The ongoing exercise aims to determine the boundaries for 126 assembly seats and 14 parliamentary constituencies in Assam.

The court has issued notice to the Centre in response to a fresh petition filed by 10 opposition leaders from the state challenging the June 20 draft proposal of the Election Commission and section 8A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. Section 8A grants the Election Commission the power to draft delimitation of seats in Assam, as well as in the northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Manipur, without involving the elected representatives.

While refusing to restrain the Election Commission from proceeding with the final report, the bench, which also comprises justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, has given the Centre three weeks to file its response to the petition.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who argued the case, expressed concern over the unprecedented nature of the situation and warned that if it is allowed to take place in Assam, similar actions could be taken in the other three states affected by the amendments. He urged the court to expedite the hearing of the case.

The unique situation in Assam arises from two amendments made in 2008. Section 10A grants the President the power to defer delimitation in the four states mentioned earlier on grounds of internal security or law and order. Section 8A, on the other hand, allows the President to rescind any order under Section 10A in changed circumstances. In February 2020, the President issued an order rescinding the earlier 2008 order to defer delimitation in Assam, and the delimitation exercise began in December of the same year.

Sibal argued that Section 8A introduces a different mechanism for delimitation in these four states compared to other states, where the process is carried out by a delimitation commission headed by a former Supreme Court judge and with representation from members belonging to Parliament and the state assembly. He stressed that the democratic process should not be disregarded and questioned how the Election Commission was determining boundaries based on population density instead of population itself.

The bench recognized the merit in the constitutional challenge raised in the case. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Centre and agreed to submit an affidavit explaining the validity of the law and the delimitation exercise currently being conducted.

As the case progresses, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will address the concerns raised by the opposition leaders and whether any changes will be made to the law governing the delimitation exercise in Assam and other northeastern states.