New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Chakma and Mara Autonomous District Councils in Mizoram to reconsider amended rules that permit their members to simultaneously hold a seat in the Mizoram Legislative Assembly, observing that all three Autonomous District Councils in the State ought to be placed on an equal footing on the question of dual membership.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a civil appeal filed against a judgment dated February 4, 2026, of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench, which had dismissed the Appellant's challenge to the vires of Rule 11, as amended, of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002.
The Court noted that the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides for three Autonomous Districts in Mizoram, namely the Chakma, Mara and Lai Districts, each governed by its own Autonomous District Council. As originally notified in 2002, Rule 11 of the Chakma ADC Rules barred a person from simultaneously being a member of the District Councils of two or more Autonomous Districts, or a member of the District Council and of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly, with an identical restriction also existing under the analogous Rules governing the Mara and Lai ADCs.
Through the impugned amendment, however, the Chakma ADC had removed the bar on dual membership of the ADC and the Legislative Assembly, retaining the restriction only in respect of simultaneous membership of two Autonomous District Councils. The Appellant had challenged the vires of this amendment before the High Court by way of a PIL, which came to be dismissed on the ground that Articles 101 and 190 of the Constitution do not bar a member of an Autonomous District Council from also becoming a member of a State Legislative Assembly, a view that the High Court found supported by the opinions of the Election Commission of India and the Governor of the State.
Before the Supreme Court, it was noted that an identical amendment removing the dual-membership bar had also been carried out in 2003 in respect of the Mara ADC, while the corresponding bar continued to remain in force for the Lai ADC. Taking note of this disparity, the Court had earlier, on April 13, 2026, issued notice in the matter.
Continuing with this reasoning, the Court held that all three Autonomous District Councils ought to be at par insofar as the bar against dual membership is concerned, and that the continuance of the bar solely for the Lai ADC, while it stood removed for the Chakma and Mara ADCs, was not desirable. The Court accordingly directed the Chief Executive Member of the Chakma ADC, as also the Chief Executive Member and the Chairperson of the Mara ADC, to consider the desirability of recalling their respective amendments, which would result in the restoration of the original version of Rule 11 barring dual membership of an ADC and the Legislative Assembly. The Registry was directed to convey a copy of the order to the concerned office-bearers for necessary compliance.
The Court directed that an appropriate decision be taken within a period of three months, failing which the Appellant and/or the State of Mizoram would be at liberty to approach the Court again.
The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside to this extent, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly, along with the pending application.
Appearances
For the Appellant: Mr. Siddhartha Borgohain, Advocate; Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, AOR; Mr. Baplu Chakma, Advocate; Mr. Wati Temjen Jamir, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Biswajit Deb, Advocate General; Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR; Mr. Shwetank Singh, Advocate; Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR; Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Devender Singh, Advocate; Ms. Shuaiza Amani, Advocate; Mr. Ayush Goyal, Advocate
Case Title : Rustom Chakma v. The State of Mizoram & Ors.
