Page No.# 1/20

GAHC030003982024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : PIL/2/2024

Sh. Doymoy Daveng Chakma and Anr.

S/o Bhadra Sen Chakma

R/o H.No.67, Devasora North, BRTF Road, District-Lawngtlai, Mizoram-796891

2: Sh. Rustom Chakma

S/o Dhana Ram Chakma

R/o H.No.8

Boronasury

District-Lawngtlai

Mizoram-79677

VERSUS

State of Mizoram and 9 Ors.

R/b Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl-7960012:The Secretary

Govt. of Mizoram

Dept. of Parliamentary Affairs

Aizawl-796001

3:The Secretary

Govt. of Mizoram

Dept. of District Council and Minority Affairs

Aizawl-796001

4:The Secretary

Law and Judicial Dept.

Govt. of Mizoram

Aizawl-796001

5:The Speaker

Mizoram Legislative Assembly

Speaker Bungalow

Tuikhuahtlang

Aizawl

Page No.# 2/20

Mizoram - 796001

6:The Election Commission of India r/b the Chief Election Commissioner

Nirvachan Sadan

Ashoka Road

New Delhi-110001

7:The Chief Executive Member

Chakma Autonomous District Council

Kamalanagar

Chawngte

District-Lawngtlai

Mizoram-796770

8:The Chairman

Chakma Autonomous District Council

Kamalanagar

Chawngte

District-Lawngtlai

Mizoram-796770

9:The State Election Commission r/b Chief Electoral Officer

Mizoram

Aizawl-796001

10:Sh. Rasik Mohan Chakma

MLA

36-Tuichawng Assembly Constituency

MLA House

Aizawl-79600

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

Advocate for the Petitioners : 1. Mr. B. Chakma,Advocate .

2. Mr. S. Borgohain, Advocate.

Advocate for the respondents : 1. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, for respondent No. 10.

2. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Addl. Advocate General

Page No.# 3/20

for respondent Nos. 6 & 9.

3. Ms. Lalnunhlui, Govt. Advocate for respondent

Nos. 1-5.

4. Ms. Juliana Lalhmangaihi

5. Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima

6. Ms. H.C. Debora Lalnunziri

7. Ms. Vanlalthlamuani

8. Ms. FabyLalrinnungi

Date on which judgment is reserved: 22.01.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.02.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A

operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been: Yes.

pronounced?

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

(Michael Zothankhuma,J)

1. Heard Mr. S. Borgohainand 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 5and 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

Page No.# 4/20

Rule 4 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of

Business etc.) (Amendment) Rules2003, 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 101and 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 thusthe 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

Assemblyvide the 2003 AmendmentRules, was unconstitutional. As such, the

Amended Rule 11 by way of the 2003AmendmentRules, should be struck down.

Page No.# 5/20

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 alongwiththe “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 36thTuichawng 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 was thereafter sought for, by

the Governor under Article 192(2). The Election Commission of India, vide Letter

Page No.# 6/20

dated 27.04.2024, returned the reference to the Governor, with its opinion that

the respondent No. 10 had not incurred disqualification under Article 191(1) (a)

of the Constitution of India, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the

Gauhati High Court in the case of Hiphei & Ors. Vs. The State of Mizoram

& Ors. In WP(C) No. 6024/2013.

6. The Governor of Mizoram thereafter, in exercise of the power of Article 192(1)

of the Constitution of India, held that the respondent No. 10 was not

disqualified from being a member of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly.

7. The counsel for the respondent No. 10 submits that no challenge has been

made by the petitioners to the decision of the Election Commission of

India,made in the Letter dated 27.04.2024 and neither has the Order dated

17.05.2024 issued by the Governor,been put to challenge. He accordingly

submits that the absence of any challenge being made to the findings and

decision of the Election Commission of India and the final decision of the

Governor, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.

8. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned counsel for Election Commission of

Indiasubmits that para No. 7 of the Reference Case No. 1 (G) of 2024 issued by

the Election Commission of India, vide letter dated 26.04.2024, has clearly

stated that membership to the Autonomous District Council is not a ground for

disqualification of a member of the Legislative Assembly and that Article 101

Page No.# 7/20

and 190 of Constitution of India only bars simultaneous membership to both the

houses of the Parliament, both houses of the State Legislature, as well as

simultaneous membership to the Parliament as well as the State Legislature.

She submits that there is no express bar in the Constitution or in the 6th

Schedule to the Constitution for a person for being a member of the District

Council and the State Legislative Assembly. She further submits that there has

been a conscious decision in removing the bar from being a member of the

District Council and the State Legislative Assembly simultaneously, by way of the

Amended Rule 11 of the 2002 Rules by the 2003 Amendment Rules. When there

is no bar in the Constitution, for a person to be a member of the District Council

and the State LegislativeAssembly simultaneously, there is no question of

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. She accordingly submits that the writ

petition should be dismissed.

9. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 – 4,

submits that if any question arises whether a member of the District Council has

become subject to any disqualificationin terms of the 2002 Rules or the 2003

Amended Rules, the same is to be referred to the Governor by the Chairman of

the District Council under Sub-Rule No. 2 and 3 of Rule 13 of the 2002 Rules,

whose decision is final. The Governor may, in his discretion before taking a

decision on the issue, take the advice of the Advocate General of the State.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the

Page No.# 8/20

6thSchedule of the Constitution of India is absolutely silent on the issue of dual

membership. There is no provision in the 6thSchedule which bars a member of

an ADC to get elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly and hold both

the offices simultaneously; neither the 6thSchedule lays down any bar on dual

membership. In fact, the Sixth Schedule is silent on this issue. Article 101 (1)

and 101 (2) of the Constitution lays an express bar on dual membership (both

houses of Parliament or Member of Parliament and State Legislature). Dual

membership is therefore not the spirit of our Constitution. As such, Courts

should discourage dual membership even if the issue pertains to holding the

offices of ADC and State Legislature as its members simultaneously. As such, it

is for the Courts to uphold the spirit of our Constitution (Articles 101 and 190).

11. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 further submits that the

core issue in Hiphei Judgment is whether or not a person who is a member of a

District Council can contest Assembly elections without resigning. It has got

nothing to do with dual membership and neither has the Division Bench of this

Court decided on the question of dual membership in the case of Hiphei &

Ors.(supra). In fact, the petitioners therein resigned as members of the

District Council, after being elected as members of the State Legislature. She

submits that the 6th Schedule areas are distinct from the other areas of Mizoram

and the District Councils are not meant to function as extensions of the State

Legislature. There could be conflict of interest and divided loyalties if dual

Page No.# 9/20

membership was allowed.

12. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

13. The issue to be decided as to whether there is any bar for a member of the

CADC from also being a member of the Mizoram State Legislative Assembly

simultaneously, in terms of the 2002 Rules,as amendable by the 2003

Amendment Rules. A further question to be decided is whether the express bar

provided in Article 101 and 190 of the Constitution, prohibiting a person from

being a member of the State Legislature and being a member of the Parliament

can extend to the facts of the present case under the 6th Schedule to the

Constitution.

14. Article 101, 190 and 191 of the Constitution of India states as follows:-

“101. Vacation of seats.(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of

Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a

person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other.

(2) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature

of a State, and if a person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of a House of

the Legislature of a State, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in

rules made by the President, that person’s seat in Parliament shall become vacant,

unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State.

(3) If a member of either House of Parliament—

(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or

Page No.# 10/20

clause (2) of article102, or

(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the

Speaker, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Chairman or

the Speaker, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon become vacant:

[Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from

information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the

Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is

not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.]

(4) If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without

permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his

seat vacant:

Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken

of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than

four consecutive days.

190.Vacation of seats.-(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of the

Legislature of a State and provision shall be made by the Legislature of the State by law

for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one

House or the other.

(2) No person shall be a member of the Legislatures of two or more States specified in

the First Schedule and if a person is chosen a member of the Legislatures of two or

more such States, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules

made by the President, that person's seat in the Legislatures of all such States shall

become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislatures of all but

one of the States.

(3) If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State-

(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in [clause (1) or

clause (2) of article 191]; or

[(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the

Page No.# 11/20

Chairman, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or

the Chairman, as the case may be,] his seat shall thereupon become vacant:

[Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from

information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the

Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is

not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.]

(4) If for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is

without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may

declare his seat vacant:

Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of

any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four

consecutive days.

191. Disqualifications for membership-

(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the

Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State

(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of

any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the

Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;

(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;

(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;

(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign

State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;

(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.

[Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause] a person shall not be deemed to hold

an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State

specified in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union

Page No.# 12/20

or for such State.

[(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or

Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.]”

15. For understanding the issue more clearly, a little bit of history is required to

be stated here to put things in the right perspective. Schedule 4 of the Mizoram

Union Territory Legislative Members’ (Removal of Disqualification) Act,1975,

hereinafter referred to as the “1975 (Removal of Disqualification) Act,” provided

that the office of the Chief Executive member, Executive member, Vice

Chairman, all members of any Autonomous District Council and the President,

Vice President, all members of any Village Council constituted in Mizoram under

any existing law or regulation, shall not be treated as a disqualification for being

chosen as a and for being a member of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly.

16. By way of an amendment, i.e.,“the Mizoram State Legislative Members

(Removal of Disqualification)(Amendment) Act, 2006”,hereinafter referred to as

the “2006 Amendment Act”, the 4th Schedule of the 1975 (Removal of

Disqualification) Act stood deleted, thereby,barring an existing Chief Executive

Member of a District Council and the persons mentioned in the 4th Schedule

from being allowed to contest,for being a member of the State Legislative

Assembly. The same was put to challenge by Mr. Hiphei, the Chairman of the

Mara Autonomous District Council, and the 2 Chief Executive Members of the Lai

Autonomous District Council and Chakma Autonomous District Council in the

Page No.# 13/20

year 2013, vide WP(C) No. 6025/2013, as they were barred from contesting the

elections to the Mizoram Legislative Assembly, in terms of the amended 4th

Schedule of the Mizoram Union Territory Legislative members (Removal of

Disqualification) (Amendment) Act, 2006. The stand of Mr. Hiphei & others was

that the Chairman/Chief Executive Members were not holding “Office of Profit.”

17. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court disposed of the challenge

made in WP(C) No. 6025/2013 vide Judgment dated 06.11.2023, as cited in the

case of Hiphei& Others Vs. The State of Mizoram &Others,reported in

2013 SCC Online 753.The Division Bench of this Court in Hiphei& Others

(Supra), held that as the Chairman and Chief Executive Members of the 3

(three) Autonomous District Councils were not holding “office of profit” under

the State or Central Government, the said writ petitioners were entitled to

contest the ensuing elections to the Mizoram State Legislative Assembly.

18. Paragraph 10 and 14 of the Division Bench Judgment in Hiphei & Others

(Supra) states as follows :-

“10. In the instant case, it is nobody's case that the petitioners are holders of Office of

Profit being conferred by the Government by appointing them as members of the

District Council and thereafter as Chairman and Chief Executive Member. Both the

positions earned by them are by virtue of elections, firstly, as member of the District

Council and secondly as Chairman and Chief Executive Member. Thus, the answer to

the basic question is in the negative. They have neither been appointed by the

Government nor are removable from their offices by any intervention of the

Government. If that be so, they having passed the basic test irrespective of deletion of

Page No.# 14/20

clause-4 of the schedule to the Act of 1975, in our considered view, they are entitled

to contest the election even without resigning from their present office as Member and

Chairman/Chief Executive Member of the respective District Councils.

14. As specifically pleaded in the writ petition, the Rules for constitution and conduct of

business of the District Council mandates that the Government has nothing to do in

the election of its Members. Moreover, being an elected Office, the Government has no

power to remove the returned candidate of the District Council from its office nor the

District Council Rules provide such powers to the Government. Looking at the matter

from that point of view, the impugned amendment, if read in the context of

debarment of the petitioners from contesting the Assembly Election, would be violative

of Article 191(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.”

19. While disposing of the case of Hiphei & Others (supra), the Division

Bench was informed that Rule 11 of the Lai Autonomous District Council

(Constitution and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2001 provided that, subject to the

provisions contained in any law made under Article 191 of the Constitution of

India, no person shall be or continue to be simultaneously a Member of the

District Council of two or more Autonomous District Councils or a Member of the

District Council and of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly. Thus, at the time of

disposal of Hiphei & Others (supra),there was a bar on a member of the Lai

District Council from being a member of the Mizoram Legislative

Assemblysimultaneously. However, the bar provided in respect of the Lai

Autonomous District Council members, was missing in the Autonomous District

Council Rules applicable for the Chakma and Mara Autonomous District Councils,

at the time of disposal of Hiphei & Others (supra).

Page No.# 15/20

20. The present case involves the Chakma Autonomous District Council, wherein

the bar to be a member of the District Council and the Legislative Assembly

simultaneously has been done away with, vide the 2003 Rules.

21. In the case of Pu Myllai Hlychho and Others vs. State of Mizoram

and Others, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 92, the Supreme Court held that the

6th Schedule to the Constitution is a part of the Constitution and cannot be

interpreted by forgetting the other provisions in the Constitution. It further held

that it is impossible to visualize complete segregation of the 6th Schedule from

the rest of the Constitution.

22. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to take support

from the observation of the Supreme Court in the above case of Pu Myllai

Hlychho and Others (supra), as stated above, to say that the spirit of Article

101 and 190 would bar a member of the District Council from being a member

of the State Legislative Assembly simultaneously, we are of the view that if the

framers of the Constitution wanted to make such a bar, as has been done in

Article 101 and 190, the same would have been expressly stated in the 6th

Schedule. However, it appears that in their wisdom, the framers of the

Constitution and the Parliament have consciously kept silent with regard to non-

permissibility of dual membership of the District Council and the State

Legislative Assembly simultaneously.

Page No.# 16/20

23. Article 101 of the Constitution prohibits a person from being a member of

both houses of Parliament or from being a member of Parliament and a member

of the Legislature of a State simultaneously. Similarly, Article 190 of the

Constitution prohibits a person from being a member of both Houses of the

Legislature of a State or being a member of the Legislatures of two or more

States. However, there is no suchexpress bar in the 6th Schedule, prohibiting a

member of the Chakma District Council being a member of the Mizoram State

Legislative Assembly. Further, paragraph 2 of the 6th Schedule, which provides

for the Constitution of District Council and the federal councils,states at sub-

para 6A, that the elected members of the District Council shall hold office for a

term of 5 (five) years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the

council after the General Electionsof the Councils, unless the District Council is

sooner dissolved under paragraph 16 and a nominated member shall hold office

at the pleasure of the Governor. There is nothing in the 6th Schedule which bars

a member of the District Council from being a member of the State Legislature.

Thus,there is a very clear difference in the provisions of Article 101 and 190vis-

à-vis the contents of the 6th Schedule. When there is no express bar in the 6th

Schedulefora member of the District Council, from also being a member of the

State Assembly, it would not be permissible for us to put words in a statute

which is non-existent. When there is no bar for a member of the District Council

to participate/contest in the State Legislative Assembly elections, there can be

no bar for the said District Council member from also being a member of the

Page No.# 17/20

State Legislature. It is well settled that the Court cannot add words to a statute

or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading

produces an intelligible result. This has been clearly held in the case of Phool

Patti Vs. Ram Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 22 and in the case of Shahabuddin

Vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653. In any event, in the present case

there is no provision in the 6th schedule to the Constitution or in the 2003 Rules

or any Rule applicable to the Chakma Autonomous District Council (‘CADC’ in

short) requiring interpretation, as to whether there is a bar for a member of the

District Council from also being a member of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly.

We also cannot extrapolate the intentor the spirit of Article 101 and 190 into the

6thSchedule, in the absence of any enabling provision or Rule. Further, there

has been a conscious decision on the part of the District Council to amend

Clause 11 of the 2002 Rules by way of 2003 Amendment Rules.

24. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, which

is basically to the effect that dual membership would result in concentration of

legislative and administrative influence over two separate domains, which could

result in conflict of interest, it is to be remembered that the Court has not been

given the power to legislate over the legislation already made by the

respondents. The only thing we need to see is the vires of the Amendment

Rules and whether it is in violation of the Constitution. The reasons for the

amendment made in terms of the 2003 Amendment Rules have not been

Page No.# 18/20

provided to us. Though it is possible to speculate that in the interest of

legislation and administration, it may not be desirable for a member of the

District Council to also be a member of the State Legislature, so that the said

person can concentrate on the business of being a member of one

House/Legislature, the said issue would have to be debated upon and a policy

decision would have to be undertaken by the rule making authority in this

regard. Though it might be best that a member of a District Council should not

be allowed to be a member of the State Legislature simultaneously, there being

no express bar in the 6th Schedule or the relevant Rules, we find no ground to

set aside the amended Rule 11 of the 2003 Amendment Rules, inasmuch as, an

ideal situation or the spirit of Article 101 and 190 of the Constitution or the spirit

of the “Prohibition of Simultaneous Membership Rules, 1950”, cannot be a

ground to allow the PIL. Further, in view of the Chakma Autonomous District

Council not being made a party to the case, there is no one to inform us, as to

the reason why the provision barring dual membership of the District Council

and the Legislative Assembly has been done away with. We are also of the view

that in view of the non-impleadment of necessary party i.e. Chakma

Autonomous District Council to the case, the present case also suffers from non-

joinder of necessary party.

25. In the case of State of A.P. Vs. Mcdowell and Company Ltd.[ (1996) 3 SCC

709], the Supreme Court has held that the law made by the Parliament and the State

Page No.# 19/20

Legislature can be struck down by the Courts on two grounds alone –(1) lack of

legislative competence and (2)violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in

Part-III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. It held that there is

no third ground and no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is

arbitrary or unreasonable or on the ground that the Court thinks it is unjustified.

Parliament and the Legislatures are composed of representatives of the people, who

are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good or

bad for them. The Court cannot sit in judgement over their wisdom.

In the present case, the legislative competence of the Chakma Autonomous District

Council in amending the 2002 Rules by the 2003 Rules is not in question and there is

nothing to show that there has been violation of any of the provisions of the

Constitution by the amendment made in terms of the 2003 Rules.

26. The above being said, para 7 of the opinion of the Election Commission of India

made in reference Case No. 1 (G) of 2024, which rejects the case of the petitioners, is

reproduced herein below, as follows:-

“The issue raised in the present reference is two-fold. Firstly, whether the Respondent

who is a Member of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly and Chakma Autonomous

District Council (CADC) constitutes violation of the constitutional principle laid down

in Article 101 and 190 of the Constitution which prohibits dual membership of

Houses. In this regard, it is stated that the Commission can provide an opinion on

grounds of disqualification of a Member of Legislative Assembly as laid down in

Article 191 (1) of the Constitution of India. The membership of a local body such as

that of Autonomous District Council is not a ground for disqualification of a member

of legislative assembly. Further, Article 101 and 190 of the Constitution bars

simultaneous membership of both Houses of Parliament, simultaneous membership

of both Houses of the State Legislature as well as simultaneous membership of

Page No.# 20/20

Parliament as well as State Legislature. Thus, there is no express bar on holding

simultaneous membership of theState Legislative Assembly as well as the

Autonomous District Councils. Furthermore, as stated in the reference itself, Rule 11

of CADC (CCB) Rules, 2002, after its amendment in the year 2003, no longer

prohibits simultaneous membership to the District Council as well State

Assembly/Parliament.”

27. The decision of the Governor of Mizoram, in exercise of the powers of Article 190

of the Constitution, made vide Order dated 07.05.2024 and the letter dated

26.04.2024 issued by the Election Commission of India has also not been put to

challenge by the petitioners.

28. We are also of the view that the opinion of the Election Commission of India and

the final decision of the Governor leads to a fresh cause of action which should have

been be put to challenge. The same has however not been done.

29. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to set aside Rule

4 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.)

(Amendment) Rules, 2003.

30. The PIL is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant