Delimitation of Manipur Constituencies (2001 Census): Synopsis by B. D. Behring

THE 84^th AMENDMENT of the Indian Constitution provided the opportunity for making necessary changes in the number of seats in the House of the People (LS) as well as the State Legislative Assembly.

Here the population of the 2001 census of every state was equally divide and as per the 2001 census, the total population of Manipur was 22,93,896 which when equally divided between the 60 constituencies resulted in 38,231 people per constituency. The rules and regulations for re-delimitation of a constituency were laid down by the Secretary Delimitation Commission in a 10-page long “Delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies Guidelines and Methodology”. Proper details of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe should be maintained by every constituency. (Should the SC/ST constitute the major population of a constituency the seat should be reserved). According to the guidelines, no new district can be created before the completion of the 4^th (re-adjustment) Delimitation on the state. Moreover according to the Delimitation Act 2002, the constituencies which have already been created cannot be altered till 2026.

1. For this purpose the Delimitation Commission was established and implemented with effect from 4/7/2002. Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (Former Judge) of the Supreme Court of India was appointed the Chairman and Shri B.B. Tandon, Election Commissioner of India as well as the State Election Commissioners of all the states was appointed as the Ex-office Members of the Commission. Further few MPs and MLAs from every state were inducted/appointed as Associate Members and a re-arrangement/Internal delimitation was carried out. The process has been completed in most of the states in India. It is reported that 9 general MP seats in 10 states were converted into SC and ST reserved seats. Moreover in 17 other states, 44 general Assembly seats were converted to SC, and 24 to ST reserved seats. Therefore the changes and re-arrangements brought about according to the 2001 census affected the pre-existing MP and MLA seat population of 1973 and resulted in renowned Parliamentarians like Mani Shankar Aiyar lost his General seat in MP as it was converted to SC reserved seat and hence he could not contest for his seat.

Also read | Manipur Congress Opposes Delimitation Based on 2001 Census, Calls for Verified Data

2. Shri C.R. Brahma, the Secretary of the Delimitation Commissioner of India wrote a letter No. 283|MR|2003 dt.27/5/2003 addressed, to 7 MP/MLAs who were the Associate Members from the state of Manipur with the subject ‘Delimitation of Constituencies of the State of Manipur’ Meeting discussed Paper-1, Prepared on the basis of 2001 Provisional Census data regarding the following:-

3. Once the letters of the Delimitation was delivered, many articles were written by various news dailies in the state. Based on the report of the news dailies and the 2003 report of the Registrar General and Census Commission, Ministry of Home Affairs, it came to be known that there was a large increase in the population in three districts viz. Senapati, Chandel and Ukhrul. That, within 10 years (1991-2001) there was:

 i) 168.78% increase in Purul sub-division in Senapati.

ii) 143.12% increase in Mao-Maram

iii) 122.64% increase in Paomata

iv) 53.96% increase in Saitu Gamphazol

v) 64.42% increase in Kasom Khullen Sub-Division of Ukhrul District

vi) 117.76% increase in Chandel District of Chakpikarong Sub-Division

vii) 68.88% increase in Moreh

viii) 58.07% increase in Machi

ix) 40.89% increase in Chandel HQ.

The Government of Manipur had then requested the Registrar General of India and Census Commissioner, Government of India to carry out a re-count of the population in the 3 hill districts.

4. Consequently the Government of Manipur issued an order No. 5|1 (57) 49-H (Census) dt. 9/7/2003 to constitute a 5-member Officer Committee, to take up an enquiry on the unreasonable/inappropriate increase of the population. Shri RC Mishra, IAS, Principal Secretary was appointed as the Chairman and he Committee was directed to submit a report on the enquiry within a month. Meanwhile, a Central Team constituted of Shri R. Sinha, Secretary Border Management, Shri JK Banthia, Census Commissioner and a Census Officer visited Manipur and had a serious discussion with the state government from 15^th-17^th September 2003. On 15^th September 2003, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Manipur requested the Hon’ble Prime Minister to conduct a re-count of the population of Manipur. The state government also conveyed apprehensions regarding the unreasonably huge increase in the population to the Central team. A report was submitted by the 5 member officer Committee on the 14^th September 2003 which informed that 4 subdivisions viz Mao-Maram, Purul, Paomata and Chakpikarong had the highest increase in the population. Following this, the Manipur Government sent a representation to the Registrar General, India and Census Commissioner, India, Delimitation Commission of India on 9/10/2003 requesting a re-count of the population of Manipur. However instead of an approval the Commission hinted at an internal Delimitation of Manipur in the near future.

5. In November 2003, the Lawyers Guide (K Rabei Singh and ors-vs-Union of India & ors) file a W.P. (PIL) No. 53 to the Hon’ble High Court. The W.P. submitted to the High Court used strong words which could hurt the sentiments of the people of the valley and possibly lead to inter community clashes and animosity due to the increase in the reserved seats of the hill areas as a result of the unaccounted increase in population. On 17/5/2004, the Registrar General, India and Census Commissioner wrote to the Lawyers Guide informing them of the re-adjustment in the population increase percentage of the 3 sub-divisions of Senapati District viz Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul according to the Representation of Manipur Government dt. 9/10/2003 as well as the order issued by the Hon’ble High Court dt. 24/2/2004. Consequently, the Census Commission changed or reduced the increase percentage of the 3 sub-divisions to 39%.

Also read | The 2001 Delimitation Process in Manipur: A Detailed Analysis

Then census/ Delimitation  commissioner published 2001 census of Manipur with allotment of MLA seats.

As we can see from the chart above, after re-adjustment of the increase percentage to 39%, the population in the 3 sub-divisions of Senapati district was reduced by 95,583.  As such, we can see that the 9 MLA seats which were based on the Provisional Census has been reduced to 7. Further, we can see slight increase of 6206 population in the final census from the provisional census in the 4 districts of the valley and slight decrease of 1,00,946 in the final census from provisional census in the 5 district of the Hills.  

6. The Manipur State Government on the Cabinet meeting dated 21/9/2005 contemplated on Agenda No.16 and decided to move to government of India and Delimitation Commission for maintaining Status quo of the Existing Assembly Constituencies. And on the All Political party meeting dated 23/10/2005, they unanimously decided and agreed that the 2001 Census figure of Manipur is factually incorrect and defective. As there may be serious law and other problem once the Deliberation exercise started political parties have decided to approach the Delimitation Commission Chairman with a request to freeze the Delimitation exercise in respect of Manipur state till such time the Registrar General of India rectifies the faulty and defective Census 2001 figure. Then 9 (Nine) Political Party Leaders Submitted representation addressed to the Chairman (Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Retd. Judge of Supreme Court of India) on 18/11/2005. Since harsh words were used in the representation, in the letter No. 282/MR/2007 dt. 5/8/2007, address to associates members of Manipur sent by the Delimitation Commission expressed their discontentment and rebuked them for using such words.

7. The Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee along with 10(ten) Political Party submitted a Writ Petition (PIL) No. 16 of 2005 to the Hon’ble High court of Manipur at Imphal. After 2(two) years, on the 19^th of January 2007 they issued a new judgement direction that  “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 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 2001 for re-adjustment 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.”

The said Judgement and Order of dt. 19/1/2007, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati was challenged by a special Leave Petition bearing SLP(C) No. 11813 of 2007 entitled Union of India & ors vs MPCC & ors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dt. 13/7/2007 granted an interim stay of the above mentioned impugned order.

8. According to the Press Note No. 282/DEL/2007 dt.17/7/2007 issued by the Delimitation Commission, the Commissions term was to end on 31/10/2007, however the Government of India had extended the term for a year i.e. 31/7/2008. Further as the Judgment of dt. 19/01/2007 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Guwahati had been stayed by the Supreme Court by its order in the SLP filed by the Union of India, the Delimitation Commission had directed for the Delimitation process of Manipur to be completed before 30/7/2007. Then Delimitation Commissioner, India again sent a letter no. 282/MR/2007 dt. 5^th August 2007 addressed:-

To,

The Associate Members from the State of Manipur

1. Shri. Mani Charanamai MP
2. Dr. Thokchom Meitei MP
3. Shri O. Ibobi MLA
4. Shri GaiKhangam MLA
5. Shri Phungzathang MLA
6. Shri O.Joy MLA
7. Shri Parijat MLA

Sub: – Delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies on the basis of Census figures.

It proposed the creation of re-delimitation of constituencies after dividing the population by the 60 constituencies equally. The proposed lists are given below:

Also read | Shortcomings of the envisaged Delimitation Exercise in Manipur

9. In 2008, Representation of the People Act 1950 was Amended and along with that the Indian Government published a Gazette on dt.22/11/2008 where Delimitation exercise of 4 (four) States viz. Manipur, Assam, Arunachal and Nagaland was DEFERRED. However in the Act.8.A (1) of the Amendment Act 2008 it is mentioned that “if the President of India is satisfied that the situations and the conditions prevailing in the states for the conduct of delimitation exercise, he may, by order rescind the deferment order issued under the provisions of sanction 10 A the Delimitation Act 2002 in relation to that a states, and provide for the conduct of delimitation exercise in the state by the Election Commission.”

Thus, after 1(one) year and 3 (three) months, the Ministry of Law and Justice published order No. 903(E), 904(E), 905(E), 906(E) on dt. 28/2/2020 and said that Delimitation process in Assam, Arunachal, Manipur and Nagaland can once again be started as Law and Order was maintained in these states.

Consequently, Delimitation Commission was constituted after the Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Deptt.) issued a Notification No. S.O. 1015 (E) dt. 6/3/2020.

       1 Justice (Retd.) Ranjana Prakash Desai          Chairperson

2) Shri Sushil Chandra, Election Commissioner          Member(Ex-officio)

• State Election Commissioner                     Member(Ex-officio)

Next, Associate Members were selected, Order No. 329 dt. 26/7/2020 and No. 3/9(3) 2017- LA (Legn) dt. 26/5/2020. From Manipur, they were:-

1)Dr. Lorho S.Phoze, MP

2)Dr. Ranjan Singh Rajkumar,MP

MLAs:

1. Shri Konthoujam Govindas, MLA, INC
2. Shri Samuel Jendai Kamei, MLA BJP
3. Shri Yengkhom Surchandra Singh , MLA INC
4. Shri Vungzagin Varte, MLA BJP
5. Dr. Sapam Ranjan Singh, MLA BJP

Furthermore, the Secretary of Delimitation Commission K.N. Bhar sent a letter No. 281/DEL/2020 dt. 29/5/2020:-

 To,

The Chief Electoral officers of

Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur & Nagaland

Sub: – Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies preparation of Statistical data and Maps-reg.

Then, the Chief Electoral Officer Manipur sent Letter No.4/ELEC/DELIMITATION/2020 dt. 2/7/2020 to the Deputy Commissioners. They were notified to send the soft copy along with Annexure I & II by dt.7/7/2020.

10.A number of cases were brought up at Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in relation to Delimitation, under (PIL),(WP) and (SLP),

i) Regarding WP (PIL) No.53 of 2003 entitled Lawyers Guide vs Union of India, the RGI and Census Commissioner had given their accept & informed on 17/2/2004 regarding the re-adjustment of the population increase percentage of the 3 sub-divisions of Senapati District to 39%. This brought about a considerable difference in the Final Census as compared to the Provisional Census (3,79,214 – 2,83,621 = 95,593). However, in Para 14 of Page 12 of the Jurisdiction of the Census Act, 1948, Amended in 1994 mentioned that – No court inferior to that of a (Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class), shall try, whether under this Act or under any other law, any act or omission which constitutes an offence under this Act.

ii) The Hon’be High Court issued  a Judgement copy dt. 19/01/2007, WP (PIL) No. 16 of 2005, the MPCC & 10 other Political Parties-vs-Union of India & ors to re-count the population of the 9 (nine) Sub-Divisions. ( See at Page 5 paragraph 7)

(iii) The order regarding W.P (PIL) No.16 of 2005 issused by Honble High Court was challenged by a SLP (C) No.11813 of 2007,  Union of India & ors-vs-MPCC & ors to which the Supreme Court of India had granted an interim stay of the impugned order dt. 13/7/2007(Seeat Page 5 last paragraph).

(iv)W.P. (PIL) 3226 of 2006- The Hon’ble Court declined the request made by the Naga Peoples organization & ors-vs-Union of India and others to implement the 2001 Provisional census.

(v) W.P. (C) 326 OF 2008- Indo Myanmar Boarder Dev. Assn-vs-Union of India.

(vi) W.P. (C) No.438 of 2011- Naga Peoples org-vs-Union of India

(vii) W.P. (C) No.123 of 2011

(viii) W.P. (C) No. 296 0f 2018

 Above W.P. 4 i.e. to (Viii) was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court in terms of signed order.

(ix) SLP (C) No. 11813 of 2007

(x) SLP (C) No. 5766 of 2007

(xi) SLP (C) No. 25347 0f 2009

 Above 3(three) i.e. (ix) to (xi) Judgment order: – In view of the notification dated 8/2/2008, are satisfied that merits of the matter do not deserve to be examined. Special leave Petitions are disposed of as infructuous, question of law, however is kept open. Dt. 21/8/2008.

Also read | Early Release of Salaries, Price Monitoring urged ahead of Christmas 2024

11. Then the Ministry of Law & Justice Affairs issused order No. 903(E), 904(E), 905(E), 905(E), dt. 28/2/2020 also order No. S.O. 1051(E), dt. 6/3/2020 for continuation of Delimitation exercise of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland & Manipur, still then there is many court cases came up i.e. W.P.(PIL) No. 22,23,25, of 2020, contempt case, for implement/ respondent application, also, application under Indian Constitution Article 32 etc.

12. In Manipur, on one hand, the people of the valley were unhappy that 3 MLA seats would be snatched from them due to the abnormal growth in population in 3 hill districts. On the other hand, the citizens of the hill areas were discontent as they believed that their rightful benefits were being snatched by the people in the valley. This had been going on for 7/8 years. The people of the valley along with the Congress Government during the time were working very earnestly to avoid implementation of Delimitation in the state. On the other hand, the people of the hill areas were of the opinion that implementation of delimitation would not do any harm as the population of the 3 Sub-Divisions of Senapati had already been reduced by 95,583. Meanwhile, the population increased percentage of Chakpikarong sub-division of Chandel district which was 117% was the only one left unchanged. The increase in population was due to ethnic (Kuki-Naga) clash, absence of birth control practices in the hill areas, influx of people from Myanmar as well as influx from other states of India including the valley region of Manipur after conversion of Moreh into an international trade center. Section 14 of the Census Act and Rule 1948 had prohibited any interference in the decisions taken by the Census.? Further the congress government in 2016 created 7 new districts in the state having defied the Guidelines and Methodology of Delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies Section 4 issued by the Indian Government which prohibited creation of new districts before the completion of the 4^th Delimitation process. It would be wrong to say that the whole population of Manipur and all the political parties are against delimitation in the state. Reason being, that a public meeting of the Tribal Rights Protection Forum Manipur which was held on 30/6/2020 which constituted about 40% of the total population of Manipur had submitted a Memorandum to the concerned authorities stating that out of the 36 recognized tribe of the state, 34 recognized tribes excluding Meetei and Meeitei-Pangal wanted to implement Delimitation in the state and exercise their Constitutional rights. Further civil organizations like UNC, KIM, ATSUM, ANSAM, KSO, ATRPF, ATCF, ZOMI Council, Manipur Tribal Forum for Delimitation, All Tribal Lawyers Association Manipur etc also expressed their wishes for the implementation of the delimitation. There are also some recognized National and State Parties which supports the Delimitation Act of 2002. Therefore it would be wise to implement Delimitation in our state as has been done in other states of India at the earliest failing which we could face objection and obstacles as we had experienced in the past when the congress government expressed disapproval regarding the Provision of 6^th Schedule in the Indian Constitution; rejection to give Financial power to the Autonomous District Council; unwillingness to give fund/power to the Manipur Hill Area Village Authority; hesitant to give 31% appointment in government service; unwillingness to give tribal Sub-Plan Fund to the Tribal area; denied autonomy to the various underground outfits who wanted to surrender their arms, hold peace talks and earn their livelihood legally. To this day even though the hill areas occupied 90% of the state area and constitute about 40% of the state, there is still strong opposition to the addition of 3 MLA seats for the hill areas all the while chanting the phrase “Ching-Tam amattani”. Should we say that the act of snatching the benefits of the people of the hill areas is a good thing/deed or is it a little too unfair? Doesn’t it seem like the people of the valley would immediately support implementation of delimitation were it to be announced that 3 MLA seats would be deducted from the hill areas and add it to the valley? Therefore, following suit of the other states of India and since 95593 numbers of people have been deducted from the provisional population of the 3 sub-division of the Senapati district, let us work towards implementing the delimitation Act 2002 in Manipur leaving aside all the objections. Let us start working now to take a precise and correct census in the 2026 delimitation.

B. D. Behring, Ex. MLA Manipur, Ex. M.P. (Rajya Sabha).       e-mail: bdbehring1953@gmail.com

(This is not a Ukhrul Times publication. UT is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any reports or views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of Ukhrul Times.)

Opinion | Abolish the Institution of Hereditary Chieftainship to Facilitate Free Movement and Peace Talk