The 2003 Amendment Rules allowing dual membership of both the District Council and State Legislative Assembly are constitutional, as no express prohibition is found in the Constitution's 6th Schedule.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain and Mr. B. Chakma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 9, Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 10. No one appears for the respondent nos. 7 & 8.

2. This is a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Constitutional validity of Rule 4 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) (Amendment) Rules 2003, hereinafter referred to as 2003 Amendment Act, by which the bar on a person from being a member of District Council and the State Legislative Assembly simultaneously, has been removed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 10 is the Chairman of the Chief Executive Member (CEM) of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘CADC’) and he is also a member of the State Legislative Assembly from 36-Tuichawng Assembly Constituency simultaneously. Article 101(2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be a member of both the Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State. Similarly, Article 190 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be a member of both Houses of the Legislature of a State or a member of the Legislature of two or more States. The learned counsel further submits that as the spirit of Article 101 and Article 190 of the Constitution of India does not permit a person to be a member of the District Council and the State Legislative Assembly simultaneously, and thus the doing away with Rule 11 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business, etc) Rules, 2002,hereinafter referred to as “2002 Act”, which prohibited a member of the District Council from being a member of the Legislative Assembly vide the 2003 Amendment Rules, was unconstitutional. As such, the Amended Rule 11 by way of the 2003 Amendment Rules, should be struck down.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 2 of Article 101 & Clause 2 of Article 190 of the Constitution of India, the President was pleased to make the ”Prohibition of Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950.” The above Rules prohibited a person from being a member of both the Parliament and a House of the Legislature of a State simultaneously. Thus, by applying the spirit of Article 101 and 190 of the Constitution alongwith the “Prohibition of the Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950” to the case of the respondent No. 10, the Amended Rule 11 of the “2003 Amendment Rules” was unconstitutional and ought to be set aside.

5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 10 on the other hand, submits that on a representation being filed by the petitioner No. 1 to the Governor of Mizoram, seeking disqualification of the respondent No. 10 from being a member of the 36th Tuichawng Assembly Constituency on the ground that he could not be a member of the CADC and the Legislative Assembly simultaneously in terms of Rule 11 (1) of the CADC (CCB) Rules, 2002 (‘2002 Rules’), the Governor sought the view of the Law and Judicial Department, Govt. of Mizoram. The Law and Judicial Department observed that the respondent No. 10 could be disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly, in terms of Clause 1 (a) of Article 191 of the Constitution of India. The opinion of the Election Commission of India wa