SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15777

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Ashutosh Kumar, CJ, Arun Dev Choudhury, J
Suraj Naiding – Appellant
Versus
N. C. Hills Autonomous Council – Respondent
WP(C)/20/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.D. Das, R. Deka, H.K. Sarma
For the Respondents: D. Saikia, P. Barua, D. Thaosen

Autonomous District Councils under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution lack plenary legislative power and do not have the constitutional competence to enact anti-defection laws, as such power is not an enumerated subject and the field is occupied by the Tenth Schedule.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Sixth Schedule - Paragraph 2(6) and 2(7) - Legislative competence of Autonomous Councils - Anti-defection law - Rule 18A inserted by N.C. Hills Autonomous Council (42nd Amendment) Act, 2017 - Whether the Council has power to legislate on disqualification on grounds of defection - Held, the Autonomous District Councils are constitutional bodies with limited and enumerated powers and do not possess plenary legislative authority - The subject of disqualification for defection does not fall within the specific subjects enumerated under the Sixth Schedule - The Tenth Schedule provides a complete constitutional code regarding anti-defection and occupies the field - Rule 18A is ultra vires and invalid. (Paras 35, 36 and 37)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the “Constitution of N.C. Hills Autonomous Council (42nd Amendment) Act, 2017”, specifically Rule 18A, which introduced anti-defection provisions for elected members. The petitioners contended that the Council lacked the legislative competence to enact such a rule.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the Sixth Schedule does not confer powers upon the Autonomous Councils to legislate on disqualification of its members on the ground of defection. The Council is not a plenary legislature, and its legislative power is restricted to enumerated subjects.

Issues: Whether the N.C. Hills Autonomous Council possesses the legislative competence under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to frame laws regarding the disqualification of members for defection.

Ratio Decidendi: The Autonomous District Councils, being creatures of the Constitution with limited and enumerated powers, cannot exercise residuary legislative powers. As the subject of disqualification for defection is not specifically provided for in the Sixth Schedule and is covered by the Tenth Schedule, the enactment of Rule 18A by the Council is ultra vires.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the Rule 18A is declared invalid.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the validity of anti-defection rules added to the autonomous council. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner's contention on lack of legislative competence of the autonomous council. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. constitutional background of anti-defection laws and the sixth schedule framework. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. analysis of ancillary power and the doctrine of pith and substance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. limitations on the autonomous council's legislative power. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. final holding declaring the legislation as ultra vires and null and void. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
J UDGMENT & O RDER ( O RAL)

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam for the respondents.

2. In the present writ petition, the constitutional validity of the “constitution of N.C. Hills Autonomous Council (42nd Amendment) Act, 2017” (hereinafter referred to as “42nd Amendment Act of 2017”), whereby a new Rule, namely, 18A has been inserted in the principal rules, providing for disqualification of the elected members of the Council on the ground of defection from their political parties, has been questioned.

The challenge raises substantial questions concerning the distribution of legislative power under the Constitution and the scope of autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

3. The newly inserted Rule provides that a Member of the Council belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a Member of the Council if he voluntarily gives up his membership of such political party; or if he votes or abstains from voting in the Council contrary to any direction or whip issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any person or authority authorized by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting or abstention.

An explanation has been provided that for the purposes of the afore-noted sub-rule, a nominated member of the Council shall (i) where he is a member of any political party on the date of his nomination as such member, be deemed to belong to such political party; (ii) in any other case, he be deemed to belong to the political party of which he becomes, or, as the case may be, first becomes, a member before the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his seat after taking oath under Rule 24 of the Rules.

An elected member of the Council shall (i) be deemed to belong to the political party, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as such member; (ii) be disqualified for being a member of the Council if he joins any other political party after such election.

An elected member of the Council, who has been elected as an independent candidate or other than a candidate set up by a political party, may opt to become a member of any political party. However, such member shall be disqualified for being a member of the Council if after becoming a member of any political party, he joins in any other political party.

A nominated member of the Council shall be disqualified for being a member of the Council if he joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his seat after taking oath under Rule 24 of the Rules.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the forgoing provisions of this sub-rule, a person, who, on the date of commencement of the Constitution of N.C. Hills Autonomous Council (42nd Amendment) Act, 2017, is a member of the Council (whether elected or nominated as such) shall (i) where he was a member of a political party immediately before such commencement, be deemed, for the purposes of clause (a) of this sub-rule, to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top