Manipur High Court
Y. Dilipkumar Singh & 2 Ors vs Union Of India & 5 Ors on 16 March, 2021
Items No. 22 - 33
(Through Video Conferencing)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
PIL No. 22 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 25 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 27 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 45 of 2020
Y. Dilipkumar Singh & 2 Ors.
....Petitioners
- Versus -
Union of India & 5 Ors.
...Respondents
and
PIL No. 23 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 26 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 30 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 41 of 2020
Kangleipak Students Assn & Anr.
....Petitioners
- Versus -
Union of India & 5 Ors.
...Respondents
Page 1
and
PIL No. 25 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 21 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 22 of 2020
with
MC(PIL) No. 43 of 2020
Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee & 15 Ors.
....Petitioners
- Versus -
Union of India & 4 Ors.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
16.03.2021
[Sanjay Kumar, CJ]
[1] In so far as PIL No. 22 of 2020 is concerned, Mr. M. Devananda,
learned counsel appears for the petitioners; Mr. Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned
Additional Advocate General, Manipur, appears for the State; Mr. Kh. Samarit,
learned counsel, appears for respondents No. 4 & 5; and Mr. S. Suresh, learned
ASG, appears for the Union of India.
In so far as PIL No. 23 of 2020 is concerned, Mr. M. Hemchandra,
learned senior counsel, appears for the petitioners; Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned
Page 2
Additional Advocate General, Manipur, appears for the State; and Mr. Kh.
Samarjit, learned counsel, appears for respondents No. 4 & 6.
In so far as PIL No. 25 of 2020 is concerned, Mr. S. Biswajit,
learned counsel, appears for the petitioners; Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Additional
Advocate General, Manipur, appears for the State; Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned
counsel, appears for respondent No. 4; and Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG, appears
for the Union of India.
[2] The prayers of the petitioners in these three writ petitions filed in
public interest are on the same lines. They are therefore amenable to final
disposal by way of this common order.
[3] PIL No. 22 of 2020 was filed by three public-spirited social workers
who claimed to be actively associated with various civil society organizations in
the State of Manipur. Their prayer is to quash and set aside the Notifications in
S.O. 905(E) dated 28.02.2020 and S.O.1015(E) dated 06.03.2020, in so far as
they pertained to the State of Manipur, and to issue a writ of mandamus to the
respondents to undertake recounting of the population in general for the whole
State and more particularly, in the nine Hill Sub-Divisions, namely, Mao Maram,
Paomata, Purul, Saitu Gamphazol, Chakpikarong, Moreh, Machi, Chandel Head
Quarter and Kasom Khullen, in the ensuing Census - 2021 survey by use of
advanced technology, including biometric, or otherwise the biometric date of
Aadhaar as maintained by the Unique Identification Authority of India. Their
further prayer is to direct the respondents to comply with the final judgment
Page 3
dated 19.01.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 16 of
2005, which required delimitation of the constituencies to be undertaken only
after recount of the population, particularly in the nine Hill Sub-Divisions
aforestated.
[4] The petitioners in PIL No. 23 of 2020 are a Student Association and
a public-spirited social worker. Their prayer is identical in terms to the prayer in
PIL No. 22 of 2020, set out hereinabove.
[5] The petitioners in PIL No. 25 of 2020, 16 in number, are various
political parties in the State of Manipur. Their prayer is to quash the very same
notifications/orders challenged in the other two cases and to direct the
respondents to abide by the decision of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 16 of 2005.
[6] By the Notification in S.O. 905(E) dated 28.02.2020 issued by the
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, the earlier order in S.O. 286(E)
dated 08.02.2008 was rescinded so as to readjust the division of the State of
Manipur into territorial constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of
the People and to the State Legislative Assembly in accordance with the
provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002. In continuation of the order dated
28.02.2020, the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, issued the
Notification in S.O. 1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 constituting a Commission for
delimitation of Assembly/Parliamentary constituencies in the State of Manipur.
[7] While so, the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India,
issued a fresh Notification in S.O. 1023(E) dated 03.03.2021 amending the earlier
Page 4
Notification in S.O. 1015(E) dated 06.03.2020 to the extent of omitting the State
of Manipur, amongst others, from the ambit thereof.
[8] In the light of the aforestated development, the grievance of the
petitioners in these three cases as regards the impugned notifications dated
28.02.2020 and 06.03.2020 stands settled, as the Government of India
apparently does not wish to continue with the delimitation exercise proposed by
it under the earlier notifications, in so far as the State of Manipur is concerned.
As regards the prayer pertaining to the conduct of Census - 2021, it may be
noted that this exercise is yet to be taken up in right earnest and no cause of
action has arisen as on date with regard to the modalities that would be adopted
for conducting the population survey. As and when such finer details are worked
out and if the same give rise to any cause for complaint, it would be open to
those aggrieved thereby to take recourse to legal remedies available to them as
per due procedure.
[9] As regards the last prayer, it is for authorities concerned to be
mindful of the directions of this Court in W.P(PIL) No. 16 of 2005, vide judgment
dated 19.01.2007, in relation to delimitation of constituencies in the State of
Manipur as well as the recounting of population and more particularly, in the nine
Hill Sub-Divisions, mentioned supra. No cause is made out to doubt that this
binding judgment would not be implemented by the authorities, in true letter and
spirit, while taking up such an exercise. Therefore, no grounds are made out as
Page 5
on date for this Court to issue any direction in relation to the aforestated
judgment.
[10] Subject to the above observations, these three cases are disposed
of as infructuous reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies
in accordance with law, if and when a fresh cause of action arises.
[11] In the light of the closure of the main cases, MC(PIL) No. 21 of
2020, MC(PIL) No. 22 of 2020, MC(PIL) No. 25 of 2020, MC(PIL) No. 26 of 2020,
MC(PIL) No. 27 of 2020, MC(PIL) No. 30 of 2020, MC(PIL) No. 41 of 2020,
MC(PIL) No. 43 of 2020 and MC(PIL) No. 45 of 2020 filed by interested
interveners, seeking to come on record as respondents in the main petitions, no
longer survive and are accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
bipin
Yumkh Digitally signed
by Yumkham
am Rother
Date: 2021.03.17
Rother 13:15:43 +05'30'
Page 6
