ONISH MOY CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) On 20.04.2018, election to the 10th Chakma Autonomous District Council was held. When the result was declared on 24.04.2018, the Indian National Congress (INC) won 7 seats, Bharatya Janata Party (BJP) 5 Seats and Mizo National Front (MNF) 8 seats. The INC and BJP formed a joint legislative party and formed the Government or the Executive Committee of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (the Government of Autonomous District Council). However, on 29.10.2018 all the elected members of the INC in a meeting resolved to withdraw their support following the advice of the then Chief Minister of Mizoram and the President of Mizoram Pradesh Congress Committee. After their withdrawal, out of the 7 members of INC 4 members formed a front namely, the Mizoram Chakma National Front and joined hands with the MNF which had 8 members and formed a new Executive Committee of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (the Government of Autonomous District Council). After the formation of the new Executive Council the remaining 3 members of the INC who are the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 4 in this writ petition submitted their resignation letters to the party and merged with the BJP. Following the above events, the Chairman of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (the respondent No.5), issued show cause notice to the 3(three) writ petitioners No. 1, 2 & 4 asking them to show cause as to why they should not be disqualified from their membership to the Chakma Autonomous District Council under Rule 12 sub-rule (5)(a) of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business, Etc.) Rules, 2002 (hereafter referred to as the Rules of 2002), on the ground of their resignation from their original party i.e. the INC who sponsored their candidature in the 10th General Election to the Chakma Autonomous District Council. Being aggrieved by the show cause notice issued to them and also being apprehensive that they may be disqualified from their membership to the Chakma Autonomous District Council, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the show cause notice and at the same time challenging the provisions of sub-rule (5) & (6) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2002 on the ground that they are repugnant to and ultra vires the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. Rokhum that sub-rule (5) & (6) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2002 are repugnant to the provisions of Sub-Para (6-A) of Para 2 of the Sixth Schedule of Constitution of India because these sub rules provide for disqualification of members of the Council even before the term provided for in the Sixth Schedule expires. The learned counsel also submitted that the disqualification provisions have been added into the Rules of 2002 without the District Council having the legislative competency to do so and therefore, they are ultra vires the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel submits that under sub para (6-A) of para-2 of Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, it is provided that elected members of the District Council shall hold Office for a term of 5(five) years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Council after the General Election to the Council, unless the District Council is sooner dissolved. Therefore, the provision of sub-rule (5) & (6) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2002 which provides for removal or disqualification of any elected member of a District Council is repugnant to the former.