NEW DELHI, Dec 10 ? In a major development, the Supreme Court today gave an ultimatum to the three feuding States of Assam, Nagaland and Arunchal Pradesh to amicably resolve their boundary dispute failing of which a boundary commission would be appointed to settle the dispute.
The Apex Court?s order came after Assam Government opposed the Central Government?s proposal to constitute a boundary commission, mooted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) arguing that it would rather accept the Supreme Court?s decision on its boundary dispute with Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
Realising that they were staring at a deadlock, a three-member Bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice G P Mathur and Justice P P Naolekar, ruled that, if a mutually acceptable resolution mechanism was not found by the three States within six weeks, then the Court's September 13th order should be complied with by all the three parties.
The Bench taking note of Assam?s objection to the MHA proposal to constitute a boundary commission, adjourned hearing for six weeks after hearing the two suits filed by Assam against Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. Earlier, senior advocate KK Venugopal representing Assam Government told the Supreme Court that Assam ?cannot accept? the precondition of the MHA that the finding of the proposed Boundary Commission constituted by it should be binding on all parties.
This came in the face of both Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh State Government?s stand that the Home Ministry?s proposal needed to be discussed. While Assam Government struck to its gun that Supreme Court?s decision on this matter would be much better.
The Supreme Court?s ruling may put Assam Government in a spot because it has been taking the stand that the boundary dispute cannot be resolved through mutual discussion. Chief Minister, Tarun Gogoi had recently told this newspaper that failure to resolve the dispute through mutual discussion had forced the State Government to approach the Apex Court.
Sri Gogoi himself was responding to the statement of Nagaland Chief Minister, N Rio, who said that they preferred to settle the dispute through discussion and out of court settlement. In September, the Supreme Court had agreed to appoint a boundary commission asking Attorney General Milon Banerjee to seek instruction from the Centre regarding appointment of its chairperson and members.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice RC Lahoti, Justices GP Mathur and Tarun Chatterjee said that the final finding and report of the commission will be binding on all the three states as they had already submitted before the Apex Court that they would abide by the verdict of the commission.
Counsel for the Election Commission, one of the parties in the case, S Murlidhar had said that after the finding of the boundary commission, Parliament would have to pass necessary law to demarcate new areas, as the exercise would amount to ?almost re-organisation of states?.
Assam has been contending that Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh occupied certain areas within its territory. On the other hand, the two states contended that their respective ?contiguous areas? with their ?ethnic tribes? were being annexed to Assam in the earlier states re-organisation.
The Election Commission?s counsel had said that even after passing a law by the Parliament, the Commission would still have to conduct ?delimitation exercise? to earmark MP, MLA and local body constituencies. He had further pointed out that a new law needed to be passed under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. This provision enabled the Parliament to pass a law for the ?formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states?. Thus, the exercise would be almost akin to that ?re-organisation of states?.
The Election Commission came into picture because Assam wanted Nagaland to be restrained from setting up polling booths within the constitutional boundary of Assam and enrolling residents of the state of Assam in the voter?s list of Nagaland. Venugopal, on behalf of Assam Government in September, had argued that the Apex Court should not go into the ?historical and cultural aspects? and that the Constitution, Schedule I, Entries 4,16 and 22 as applicable to Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal should be the guiding force.
This became the bone of contention because Nagaland has rejected the 1925 demarcation and insisting on the ?cultural, ethnic, linguistic, tribal and the contiguous zone aspects? to solve the boundary problem. Nagaland?s take was that the 1925 notification was biased, as it did not take into account various factors. Assam countered this on the ground that only the ?constitutional? scheme should be the criteria and not ?historical or cultural or ethnic? basis.
Assam Government also wanted Nagaland should to be restrained from ?encroaching the areas within the Constitutional boundary of state of Assam? seeking directions to the Nagaland Government to hand over the peaceful possession of those areas.