Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, arguing the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the HC order, told a three-judge bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud that it is a sovereign act between the states to demarcate the boundaries in a fair and transparent manner which could not be interfered with by the HC while entertaining petition.
“Any issue concerning the alteration of boundaries be or issues concerning exchange of areas between two states is a purely political question relating to the political administration of the country and its federal constituent units. The said exercise has no shade of judicial adjudication, and falls squarely within the sole domain of the Executive. Any interference or staying of such MoU amounts to a complete breach of the separation of powers enshrined under the Constitution,” he said.
The bench stayed the HC order saying “prima facie we see no reason why the HC should have stayed the implementation of the MoU”. Appearing for the original petitioner before the HC, advocate Pragyan P Sharma told the court that the MoU could not have been implemented as it amounted to redrawing of boundaries. He said redrawing of state boundaries has to be approved by Parliament as per Article 3 of the Constitution. The SG said Article 3 is inapplicable to the case as the MoU didn’t redraw the boundary but identified a boundary which didn’t exist for 50 years
Under the MoU, signed last year, the boundary was settled in six of the 12 disputed areas — Upper Tarabari, Gazang reserve forest, Hahim, Boklapara, Khanapara-Pilangkata and Retacherra.