The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a decision of a Single Bench of the Meghalaya High Court to put on hold a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) demarcating the boundaries between Assam and Meghalaya to settle border disputes in six areas.
The MoU was signed between Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and his Meghalaya counterpart Conrad K. Sangma on March 29 last year in the presence of Home Minister Amit Shah.
On December 8, a Single Bench of the Meghalaya High Court, while hearing a writ petition challenging the MoU, had sought a reply from the State’s Advocate General and passed an interim order that “no physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground, pursuant to the MoU dated March 29, 2022 shall be carried out, till the next date”.
Making an urgent oral mentioning before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Meghalaya, said the issue regarding the MoU was purely a political one and entirely within the domain of the Executive. The High Court ought not to have entertained it to pass an order of interim stay on December 8. He said the writ petitions which allege that the MoU did not cover the entire gamut of disputes focussing on border villages were now pending before a Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court.
‘Not warranted’
“Whether the MoU which has been entered into between the Chief Ministers of the States of Assam and Meghalaya would require any further authorisation of Parliament is a distinct issue which we would reserve for further consideration. However, we are of the considered opinion that an interim order effectively staying the implementation of the MoU between the Chief Ministers of the two States was not warranted… There shall be a stay of the operation of the interim order of the Single Judge dated 8 December 2022,” the Supreme Court ordered.
The apex court said the Single Bench had prima facie furnished no reason to stay the MoU.
Counsel for Assam submitted that the Meghalaya High Court had passed orders without issuing notice or hearing his State.
“This is a case entirely within the political thicket…” Mr. Mehta submitted, questioning the judicial intervention by the High Court.
Mr. Mehta submitted that the MoU did not purport to alter the boundaries of either Assam or Meghalaya. The boundary between Assam and Meghalaya was not demarcated earlier and the MoU precisely attempted to do that in respect of the six areas.
“In the absence of a demarcation, the benefit of development schemes made available by the respective State governments could not be availed of by citizens who reside in the areas which form the bone of contention and which has now been settled by the MoU,” the court recorded the law officer’s statement.
Issuing notice, the Bench listed the case for January 23
