Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies based on Census 2001 in Manipur-I
|
Oinam Nabakishore Singh
Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies involve redrawing of the boundaries of the same based mainly on the population data and physical contiguity of the settlements so that there is administrative convenience in the conduct of election. It also reflects the principle of equal representation through more or less equal number of voters per Assembly segment. While the underlying principle of updating of seats in the Assembly or Parliamentary Constituency based on change in population, composition of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and unreserved population in the State is logical, the integrity of census data is crucial. After the census of the country in 2001, Delimitation Act, 2002 was enacted by the Parliament to carry out delimitation in the entire country. When the exercise of the same was initiated, errors in census data of 2001 were noticed. Several errors in population figures were glaring and hard to explain on the basis of norms of growth of population–birth and death rate, improved healthcare facilities and migration. Abnormal decadal growth of population was witnessed in nine sub-divisions in the hill districts of Manipur in 2001 census as noted
Besides, in 2001 census, almost all hill districts witnessed more than twice the decadal growth of population of the valley districts– decadal growth in Senapati including Kangpokpi (81.96%), Tamenglong including Noney (29.23%), Churachandpur including Pherzawl (29.81%), Bishnu-pur (13.90%), Thoubal (24.62%), Imphal West (15.42%), Imphal East (19.16%), Ukhrul (28.98%), and Chandel (72.80%).
Opposition to the delimitation in Manipur has been fueled by abnormal growth in population mainly in the hill districts, which may be attributed to large-scale immigration or fictitious recording motivated by political consideration and agenda of cornering benefits of the Government schemes on the basis of population. Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, Manipur Unit), Communist Party of India (CPI) and seven other political parties functioning in Manipur, despite differences among them, came together and filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court with Union of India and others as respondents, challenging the proposed readjustment and delimitation under the Delimitation Act, 2002 in the State of Manipur. There was a hue and cry from several civil society organizations and the public in Manipur, expressed through the print and electronic media in response to the abnormal, unnatural, impossible and unreliable growth of population in 9 (nine) sub-divisions of 3 (three) hill districts, namely, Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel as shown in the Provisional Census figures mentioned above.
There was no reasonable explanation for the abnormal growth of population in the nine sub-divisions. The State Government of Manipur, in response to the public hue and cry to the abnormal growth of population in the State, constituted a Committee vide Office Memorandum No.5/1(57)/99-H(Census) dated 9.7.2003 to enquire into the abnormal increase in population in 9 (nine) hill sub-divisions of Manipur with the following composition:
1. Shri RC Mishra, Principal Secretary Chairman
2. Shri Santosh Macherla, Special Secretary (Home) Member
3. Director (Economics & Statistics) Member
4. National Information Centre (NIC), Manipur, Member.
The Committee submitted its report with the finding that there was abnormal growth of population in 4 (four) Sub-divisions, ie, Mao-Maram, Paomata, Purul and Chak- pikarong and high growth of population in the remaining five sub-divisions in the hill districts, which cannot be explained rationally. It also recommended for verification of census figures of population in the above mentioned sub-divisions. The State Government of Manipur requested the Registrar General of India to rectify the wrong census figures. In a writ petition, WP (PIL) No.53/2003 filed by the Lawyers Guild before the Guwahati High Court, the Division Bench was pleased to pass an order on 24.2.2004 directing the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India to consider the representation made by the State Government of Manipur as well the representation of Lawyer’s Guild before publication of final Census Report. It was also ordered in the WP(PIL) No.53/2003 that Delimitation Commission of India should not issue orders under the Delimitation Act, 2002 delimiting Constituencies and re-adjusting seats of Parliament and State Assembly till the final Census Report was published.
The Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India revised the census figure of three sub-divisions of Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul of Senapati district to 39% decadal growth rate without changing the figures of remaining six sub-divisions. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, the petitioners, namely Manipur Congress Party, Bharatiya Janata Party and eight other political parties filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court to issue directions to the Delimitation Commission of India not to issue orders of delimitation and adjustment of seats to the House of the People and Manipur Legislative Assembly. Operative part of the order passed by the Division bench of the Guwahati High Court in the said writ petition on 19th January, 2007 is reproduced below :
“37. For the reasons discussed above and also considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are hereby directed to re-count the heads of the population in the said 9 hill sub-divisions of the hill districts of Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel of the State of Manipur for publishing another Census report of India 2001 in respect of the said 9 hill sub-divisions and the present final Census Report of India 2001 for the said 9 hill sub-divisions of the 3 hill districts of Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel shall not be taken as the Census Report of India 2001 for readjustment of number of seats and delimitation of Constituencies of the State of Manipur under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 by the Delimitation Commission.
38. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.”
In the Press Note No.282/DEL/2007 dated the 17th July, 2007 issued by the Delimitation Commission of India, the directions of the Guwahati High Court referred above and subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India in that regard are mentioned as given below:
“As regards the State of Manipur, the Guwahati High Court vide its judgment dated 19-01-2007 had directed fresh census in respect of three hilly districts of Manipur and till the completion of the census the delimitation exercise had been stayed. Union of India had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India, which came for preliminary hearing on July 13, 2007, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition has granted interim stay of the impugned order of the Guwahati High Court. In view of this, the Manipur delimitation work, which was stayed because of the pendency of the Guwahati High Court’s order, would be resumed and completed by 30th of September 2007.”
Later on, on the basis of representation submitted by Manipur Government to the then Hon’ble Prime Minister and representations from various civil society organizations in Manipur, the Government of India issued an order No. S.O. 286 (E) dated the 8th February, 2008 deferring the process and exercise of delimitation with the following conclusion: “Now, therefore, keeping in view the serious problem in the State of Manipur and to obviate the above problems, the President, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (l) of Section lOA of the Delimitation Act, 2002 (33 of 2002), and on being satisfied that a situation has arisen where unity and integrity of India is likely to be threatened and there is a serious threat to the peace and public order, hereby defer the delimitation exercise in the State of Manipur with immediate effect and until further orders.”
(The writer is former Chief Secretary, Governmen. of Manipur and a retired IAS officer)
Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies involve redrawing of the boundaries of the same based mainly on the population data and physical contiguity of the settlements so that there is administrative convenience in the conduct of election. It also reflects the principle of equal representation through more or less equal number of voters per Assembly segment. While the underlying principle of updating of seats in the Assembly or Parliamentary Constituency based on change in population, composition of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and unreserved population in the State is logical, the integrity of census data is crucial. After the census of the country in 2001, Delimitation Act, 2002 was enacted by the Parliament to carry out delimitation in the entire country. When the exercise of the same was initiated, errors in census data of 2001 were noticed. Several errors in population figures were glaring and hard to explain on the basis of norms of growth of population–birth and death rate, improved healthcare facilities and migration. Abnormal decadal growth of population was witnessed in nine sub-divisions in the hill districts of Manipur in 2001 census as noted
Besides, in 2001 census, almost all hill districts witnessed more than twice the decadal growth of population of the valley districts– decadal growth in Senapati including Kangpokpi (81.96%), Tamenglong including Noney (29.23%), Churachandpur including Pherzawl (29.81%), Bishnu-pur (13.90%), Thoubal (24.62%), Imphal West (15.42%), Imphal East (19.16%), Ukhrul (28.98%), and Chandel (72.80%).
Opposition to the delimitation in Manipur has been fueled by abnormal growth in population mainly in the hill districts, which may be attributed to large-scale immigration or fictitious recording motivated by political consideration and agenda of cornering benefits of the Government schemes on the basis of population. Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, Manipur Unit), Communist Party of India (CPI) and seven other political parties functioning in Manipur, despite differences among them, came together and filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court with Union of India and others as respondents, challenging the proposed readjustment and delimitation under the Delimitation Act, 2002 in the State of Manipur. There was a hue and cry from several civil society organizations and the public in Manipur, expressed through the print and electronic media in response to the abnormal, unnatural, impossible and unreliable growth of population in 9 (nine) sub-divisions of 3 (three) hill districts, namely, Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel as shown in the Provisional Census figures mentioned above.
There was no reasonable explanation for the abnormal growth of population in the nine sub-divisions. The State Government of Manipur, in response to the public hue and cry to the abnormal growth of population in the State, constituted a Committee vide Office Memorandum No.5/1(57)/99-H(Census) dated 9.7.2003 to enquire into the abnormal increase in population in 9 (nine) hill sub-divisions of Manipur with the following composition:
1. Shri RC Mishra, Principal Secretary Chairman
2. Shri Santosh Macherla, Special Secretary (Home) Member
3. Director (Economics & Statistics) Member
4. National Information Centre (NIC), Manipur, Member.
The Committee submitted its report with the finding that there was abnormal growth of population in 4 (four) Sub-divisions, ie, Mao-Maram, Paomata, Purul and Chak- pikarong and high growth of population in the remaining five sub-divisions in the hill districts, which cannot be explained rationally. It also recommended for verification of census figures of population in the above mentioned sub-divisions. The State Government of Manipur requested the Registrar General of India to rectify the wrong census figures. In a writ petition, WP (PIL) No.53/2003 filed by the Lawyers Guild before the Guwahati High Court, the Division Bench was pleased to pass an order on 24.2.2004 directing the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India to consider the representation made by the State Government of Manipur as well the representation of Lawyer’s Guild before publication of final Census Report. It was also ordered in the WP(PIL) No.53/2003 that Delimitation Commission of India should not issue orders under the Delimitation Act, 2002 delimiting Constituencies and re-adjusting seats of Parliament and State Assembly till the final Census Report was published.
The Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India revised the census figure of three sub-divisions of Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul of Senapati district to 39% decadal growth rate without changing the figures of remaining six sub-divisions. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, the petitioners, namely Manipur Congress Party, Bharatiya Janata Party and eight other political parties filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court to issue directions to the Delimitation Commission of India not to issue orders of delimitation and adjustment of seats to the House of the People and Manipur Legislative Assembly. Operative part of the order passed by the Division bench of the Guwahati High Court in the said writ petition on 19th January, 2007 is reproduced below :
“37. For the reasons discussed above and also considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are hereby directed to re-count the heads of the population in the said 9 hill sub-divisions of the hill districts of Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel of the State of Manipur for publishing another Census report of India 2001 in respect of the said 9 hill sub-divisions and the present final Census Report of India 2001 for the said 9 hill sub-divisions of the 3 hill districts of Senapati, Ukhrul and Chandel shall not be taken as the Census Report of India 2001 for readjustment of number of seats and delimitation of Constituencies of the State of Manipur under Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 by the Delimitation Commission.
38. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.”
In the Press Note No.282/DEL/2007 dated the 17th July, 2007 issued by the Delimitation Commission of India, the directions of the Guwahati High Court referred above and subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India in that regard are mentioned as given below:
“As regards the State of Manipur, the Guwahati High Court vide its judgment dated 19-01-2007 had directed fresh census in respect of three hilly districts of Manipur and till the completion of the census the delimitation exercise had been stayed. Union of India had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India, which came for preliminary hearing on July 13, 2007, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition has granted interim stay of the impugned order of the Guwahati High Court. In view of this, the Manipur delimitation work, which was stayed because of the pendency of the Guwahati High Court’s order, would be resumed and completed by 30th of September 2007.”
Later on, on the basis of representation submitted by Manipur Government to the then Hon’ble Prime Minister and representations from various civil society organizations in Manipur, the Government of India issued an order No. S.O. 286 (E) dated the 8th February, 2008 deferring the process and exercise of delimitation with the following conclusion: “Now, therefore, keeping in view the serious problem in the State of Manipur and to obviate the above problems, the President, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (l) of Section lOA of the Delimitation Act, 2002 (33 of 2002), and on being satisfied that a situation has arisen where unity and integrity of India is likely to be threatened and there is a serious threat to the peace and public order, hereby defer the delimitation exercise in the State of Manipur with immediate effect and until further orders.”
(The writer is former Chief Secretary, Governmen. of Manipur and a retired IAS officer)
