NEW DELHI, 6 Jan: The Supreme Court on Friday stopped the execution of the Maghalaya High Court order staying the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the chief ministers of the two states for settling their festering boundary dispute.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the lawyers representing Assam and Meghalaya and ordered a stay on the order of the Meghalaya High Court.
The bench took note of the submissions that some of the areas, which are covered under the MoU, are not getting the benefits of the developmental schemes due to the old border disputes and, moreover, the boundary between the two states has not been altered due to the agreement.
It also issued notices to the four people who had originally moved the high court against the execution of the MoU on various grounds, including that the settlement breached Article 3 of the Constitution.
Article 3 empowers Parliament to make a law related to the formation of new states and alteration of the boundaries of existing states.
Earlier during the day, the apex court agreed to hear the plea challenging the order of the Meghalaya High Court.
“We will hear it. Please provide three copies of the petition,” the CJI said.
A single-judge bench of the Meghalaya High Court had on 8 December ordered an interim stay on physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground following the interstate border pact.
Later, a division bench of the high court refused to interfere with the order of the single-judge bench, prompting the petitioners to appeal in the top court.
Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma and his Assam counterpart Himanta Biswa Sarma had in March last year signed an MoU for demarcating the border in at least six of the 12 contested locations that often raised tensions between the two states.
On 29 March last year, the agreement was signed in the presence of union Home Minister Amit Shah by the chief ministers of Assam and Meghalaya.
The pact sought to resolve the protracted dispute in six of the 12 places along the 884.9-km border between the two states.
The boundary dispute between Assam and Meghalaya has lingered for 50 years. However, efforts to resolve it have gained pace in recent times.
Meghalaya was carved out of Assam as a separate state in 1972, but the new state had challenged the Assam Reorganisation Act, 1971, leading to dispute in 12 border locations.
Alteration of boundaries political issue
Meghalaya govt Issues concerning the alteration of boundaries or exchange of areas between two states are a purely political question within the “sole domain” of the executive, the Meghalaya government has told the Supreme Court.
The state government has challenged the 8 December, 2022 order of the Meghalaya High Court staying the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the chief ministers of Assam and Meghalaya for settling their festering boundary dispute.
In its plea before the top court, the Meghalaya government said the high court failed to appreciate that an interim order cannot be passed on mere asking of the petitioner when the matter pertains to exercise of sovereign functions like demarcation of boundary between the states.
“It is submitted that any issues concerning the alteration of boundaries between two states or issues concerning exchange of areas between two states is a purely political question relating to the political administration of the country and its federal constituent units.
“It is submitted that the said exercise has no shade of judicial adjudication, and falls squarely within the sole domain of the executive. It is submitted that any interference or staying of such MoU amounts to a complete breach of the separation of powers enshrined under the Constitution of India,” the plea said.
The petition stated that the MoU signed by the two states is a sovereign act between the states to demarcate the boundaries in a fair and transparent manner, which cannot be interfered with by way of a writ petition and much less by passing an interim order.
Moreover, the scope of judicial review in respect of such matters is extremely narrow, it said.
“It is respectfully submitted that in passing the impugned judgment, division bench failed to appreciate that the MoU dated 29 March, 2022, signed between the state of Assam and the state of Meghalaya in the presence of union Home Minister settling outstanding boundary disputes in respect of six areas.
“Clause 19 of MoU required the Survey of India to demarcate the boundary of the state of Assam and the state of Meghalaya in respect of six areas, in the presence of representatives of both the states. The interim order passed by the single judge has in effect resulted in stalling the said process of demarcation of boundary between the two states and derailing the resolution of a long-pending boundary dispute between the state of Assam and the state of Meghalaya,” the plea said.
The state government said the high court ought to have interfered with the interim order passed by the single judge as the same was passed in a mechanical manner without adherence to the judicially determined principles for grant of interim relief. (PTI)
