Kishor Kumar Kalita, Rahul Sensua
In accordance with Articles 82 and 170 (3) of the Indian Constitution as amended by the 84th Amendment, the Delimitation Act of 2002 was passed by the Indian Parliament. A Delimitation Commission is established in accordance with the provisions of this Act to divide the provincial constituencies of each State and Union Territory in order to hold elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
Such delimitation would be carried out in accordance with the 2003 Constitutional Amendment based on the 2001 Census. It is noteworthy that, based on the aforementioned provisions, the Delimitation Commission has already finished delineating the boundaries of India’s 25 States and Union Territories, but that this process was delayed in the case of Assam for a variety of reasons..
In a public interest litigation filed in the Guwahati High Court in 2007 (Shri Ram Parsad Sarmah and Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors, PIL No. 62/2007) the court issued a stay order and the delimitation of constituencies in Assam was suspended on the basis of this order. In a consequential development the Supreme Court of India rejected the stay order of the Guwahati High Court and subsequently removed the obstacle to the Delimitation Commission from resuming constituency redetermination in Assam.
Notably, despite getting the go-ahead from the Supreme Court of India, the effort to delimit constituencies in Assam was unable to begin. At that time, numerous political and student organizations, including the All Assam Student Union (AASU), the state BJP chapter, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), the All Bodo Student Union (ABSU), the Koch Rajbongshi Student Union, and the All Assam Minority Student Union (AAMSU), vehemently opposed the Assam delimitation process and organized more than 113 protests to call for its cancellation. Eventually considering the grievances of the different organisations and political parties, an order was notified in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India on February 1, 2008 deferring the determination of constituencies in Assam.
According to what is generally known, the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, postponed the redetermination of constituencies in Assam due to the following reasons:
1) Many political and non-political organizations opposed the then Delimitation Commission’s plan to cut one number of assembly constituency seats in each of three Upper Assam districts, namely Shivsagar, Jorhat, and Dibrugarh. There were many protests, picketing, bandhs, road blocks etc. in protest against the delimitation of constituencies by such parties and organizations. Because of this, the concerned ministry was afraid that such an exercise might aggravate Assamese citizens’ emotions. The ministry also believed that the delimitation of numerous constituencies would likely sever the link between the people and their representatives.
2)The main demand of the parties including AASU and BJP was to postpone the constituency delimitation process until the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is prepared in Assam and the genuine citizens of the state can be confirmed. Considering this aspect seriously, the Ministry of Law and Justice suspended the constituency delimitation process.
3) The Ministry was also concerned that Assam’s constituency redetermination process, which is a very sensitive matter, which would upset law and order in different parts of the State.
4) Due to the general lack of law and order in the State, the Government of India at that time used Section 3 of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act to declare the entire State, as well as a 20 km stretch along Assam’s border with Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh, as ‘Disturbed Area.’ In addition, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967’s two-year extension was made to impede the designation of the NDFB (National Democratic Front of Bodoland), ULFA (United Liberal Front of Asom), and numerous other organizations as ‘unlawful associations’.
These groups, who pose a danger to India’s sovereignty and integrity, were suspected of exploiting the circumstances to commit widespread acts of violence and undermine law and order. 5) The proposed constituency delimitation was at the time strongly opposed by members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Lok Sabha, members of all political parties, panchayat leaders, and leaders of the people. They requested that the constituency delimitation exercise be put off until the issues raised by the general public, indigenous people, and opinion leaders were resolved. The Government of Assam also informed the Government of India and requested that it maintain the status quo in order to safeguard the peaceful coexistence of the State’s population, the preservation of territorial integrity, peace, and order.
In view of the above factors, the last part of the order said, “Now therefore, keeping in view the serious problem in the state of Assam to obviate the above problems, the President, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (I) of section 10 A of the Delimitation Act 2002 (33 of 2002), and on being satisfied that a situation has arisen where unity and integrity of India is likely to be threatened and there is a serious threat to peace and public order, hereby defers the delimitation exercise with immediate effect and until further orders.”
Since the delimitation of constituencies in Assam was suspended by the said order, a new section 8A was inserted in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 in April 2008 provided for the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur or Nagaland. The relevant sub section 1 of Section 8A reads as- “If the President is satisfied that the situation and conditions prevailing in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur or Nagaland are conducive for the conduct of delimitation exercise, he may, by order, rescind the deferment order issued under the provisions of section 10A of the Delimitation Act, 2002 (33 of 2002) in relation to that state and provide for the conduct of delimitation exercise in the state by election Commission”
Now, under this provision the Election Commission of India has prepared the draft constituency delimitation in Assam. The BJP led government has convinced the people of Assam that such a process of delimitation will ensure the safeguard of the indigenous people of Assam. The AASU and AJYCP have adopted a similar strategy and have expressed their support for the delimitation draft, saying that it may be one of the tools used to safeguard the safety of Assamese indigenous people. Therefore, we would want to ask these two groups who have been speaking out for the protection of Assamese indigenous people the following questions:
1) By a decision dated February 1, 2008, the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, postponed the delimitation in Assam, reasoning that the state’s circumstances did not support constituency reconstruction. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act’s implementation in Assam, the NRC’s lack of preparation, and the threat of rebel groups exploiting public outrage led to the announcement of such delay. Nearly 15 years later, the NRC is still a contentious issue in Assam, and the base year for citizenship is still up for debate. What is the rationale behind supporting delimitation in Assam when matters regarding the NRC and the base year for citizenship are still pending in the Supreme Court?
2). In a number of Assam districts, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is still in effect. Similar to that, the ULFA issue is still open. Prior to 2008, the majority of the parties argued that constituencies shouldn’t be changed because the NRC wasn’t ready and Assam still had the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in effect. Although the environment in Assam before to 2008 is not all that different from the environment in Assam today, in whose interest is the AASU supporting the draft of delimitation?
3). Finally, the AASU should explain to the people of Assam how the delimitation will protect the indigenous people of Assam since it has been fighting for decades for the implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord?