THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
Bodo Writer Academy And Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India And Ors. - Respondent
PIL No. 24 Of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S.R Rabha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) and Ms. P. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the State of Assam, Mr. R.K.D Choudhury, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India, Mr. T. Deuri, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, WPT & BC appearing for respondent No. 4.
2] By filing the instant Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as “PIL”) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying inter alia that clause 3.1(ii), clause 3.1 (iii), clause 3.2, clause 3.3, clause 3.4, clause 4.4, clause 7.2 and clause 8.1 of the Tri-Partite Memorandum of rd Settlement (3 Bodo Accord) (hereinafter referred to as “MoS”) signed on 27.01.2020 between the Union Government of India, State Government of Assam and the leaders of ABSU, UBPO and NDFB (four factions) be declared as ultravires the Constitution of India.
3] The gamut of the case is as follows:-
The Government of India with a view to stop the violence and restore normalcy and bring about an amicable solution to the problems of the Bodo people held a series of meetings with the Government of Assam as well as with the leaders of All Bodo Students Union and Bodo People Action Committee, which finally culminated in signing of the "Bodo Accord" on 20.02.1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Bodo Accord). The basic st objectives of the 1 Bodo Accord were to provide maximum autonomy within the framework of the Constitution of India to Bodos for social, economic, educational, ethnic and cultural advancement.
4] Thereafter, the Bodoland Autonomous Council Bill (hereinafter referred to as the “BAC Bill”) was introduced in the Assam State Assembly on 5th April 1993 and the said BAC Bill was enacted as Bodoland Autonomous Council Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1993”). The said Act, 1993 provided for the establishment of a Bodoland Autonomous Council within the State of Assam with maximum autonomy within the framework of the Constitution of India.
5] During the year, 1999 when India was at war with Pakistan over the issue of Kargil, to facilitate the movement of Indian troops stationed in Bodoland to the nations north-western borders, the Bodol and Liberation Tiger (hereinafter referred to as the “BLT”) was the only underground outfit of the northeast to declare a unilateral ceasefire again during that period so that the country's sovereignty is protected.
6] In response to the ceasefire declared by BLT, the Government initiated informal talks and on 15.03.2000 declared a ceasefire from its side. On 01.05.2000, formal tripartite talks involving the Government of India, Government of Assam and the BLT commenced.
7] On 10.02.2003, the Government of India held final talks with all the major Bodo groups like ABSU, BSS, BPAC, and also the elected representatives of both the State Assembly as well the Members of Parliament and thereafter the Government of India and the Government of Assam signed the MoS with the nd BLT(hereinafter referred to as “2 Bodo Accord”). The main objectives of the 2nd Bodo Accord were to create an autonomous self-governing body to be known as Bodoland Territorial Council (hereinafter referred to as “BTC”) within the State of Assam and to administer a territory spanning 3079 villages making four coterminous districts - Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
8] Pertinent also that the said Act, 1993 was repealed by the Assam nd Legislative Assembly on 04.04.2003 following the signing of the 2nd Bodo Accord.
9] Pursuant to the 2 Bodo Accord, the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India
Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, reported in
Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab
Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka
B.R. Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others
J&K National Panthers Party Vs. Union of India & Others
State of Punjab Vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another
Kuldip Nayar & Others Vs. Union of India & Others
Janata Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary and others
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Another Vs C.K. Rajan and Others
The legality of the clauses of the 3rd Bodo Accord was upheld, confirming their non-violation of constitutional rights and the legitimacy of consequential notifications regarding Bodo governance.
Public Interest Litigations must be filed bona fide and not for personal gain; courts must ensure genuine public interest is involved.
The court upheld the validity of the Notification dated 20.07.2021, confirming that the State Government complied with the necessary provisions of Regulation 160 of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulatio....
Court affirmed the preservation of federalism under Article 3 of the Constitution, rejecting the challenge to its constitutional validity while maintaining separation of powers.
Provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013 cannot be clubbed with the APMRUDA Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2016.
The High Court held that litigants must approach Administrative Tribunals first for recruitment-related matters, as exclusive jurisdiction was conferred under the Administrative Tribunals Act, even f....
The presumption of constitutionality and the necessity of challenging legislation in a properly constituted writ petition.
A challenge to a long-standing notification under the Muslim Wakfs Act after an undue delay is impermissible, reinforcing the finality of administrative actions.
The settlement granted to the petitioner association could not be cancelled unless found to have been contrary to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.