By NE NOW NEWS
Guwahati: In a significant ruling on the legislative powers of autonomous councils under the Sixth Schedule, the Gauhati High Court has struck down anti-defection provisions enacted by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (now Dima Hasao Autonomous Council), holding that the body lacked constitutional competence to legislate on defection.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury declared Rule 18A of the Constitution of N.C. Hills Autonomous Council (42nd Amendment) Act, 2017 as “ultra vires and unconstitutional”, observing that anti-defection laws fall exclusively within the constitutional scheme under the Tenth Schedule.
The court passed the order on a writ petition filed by Suraj Naiding, Bimonta Thaosen, Dhironjoy Naiding and Amon Thaosen, all residents of Dima Hasao district.
The impugned provision had introduced disqualification rules for elected council members on grounds of defection, broadly mirroring the anti-defection framework applicable to Parliament and state legislatures.
Under the provision, members faced disqualification if they voluntarily gave up membership of their political party or voted against party direction without prior approval. The amendment also vested the council chairman with authority to decide questions of disqualification.
During the hearing, the petitioners argued that Sixth Schedule councils exercise only limited and enumerated legislative powers and are not empowered to enact anti-defection laws.
Accepting the submission, the bench held that autonomous district councils function strictly within the confines of powers expressly granted under the Constitution and do not possess plenary legislative authority.
“The Autonomous District Councils are constitutional bodies with limited and enumerated powers,” the court observed, adding that their jurisdiction is confined to subjects specifically set out in the constitutional framework.
The court further held that the doctrine of “pith and substance” could not be invoked to validate the legislation, noting that disqualification on grounds of defection is a substantive constitutional matter and cannot be treated as merely incidental regulation.
Rejecting the state’s argument that the provision was ancillary to regulating membership and tenure of councillors, the bench said anti-defection constitutes a self-contained constitutional mechanism governed entirely by the Tenth Schedule, which cannot be replicated by subordinate legislative bodies.
The judgment also referred to the pending Constitution (125th Amendment) Bill, 2019, which proposes extending anti-defection provisions to autonomous councils under the Sixth Schedule, observing that such changes lie within the domain of Parliament.
Holding that the council had encroached upon a field reserved for the Union Legislature, the court said the provision was enacted without legislative competence.
Concluding the matter, the bench struck down Rule 18A, holding it to be invalid and beyond the legislative competence of the council.