NEW DELHI, Jan 6: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the December 8, 2022 order of the High Court of Meghalaya putting a stay on the operation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into by the chief ministers of Meghalaya and Assam for settling the border dispute between the states and decided to hear the matter again after two weeks.
The governments of Assam and Meghalaya had signed the MoU on March 29 last year resolving their border dispute in six out of the twelve areas of difference. The High Court had stayed the MoU on the ground that it needs prior parliamentary sanction.
Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma, appearing for the original writ petitioner before the High Court, told the Chief Justice of India led bench on Friday that the MoU did not have Parliamentary sanction. On the other hand, Advocate General Amit Kumar appearing for Meghalaya informed the top court that only boundaries were being demarcated for the betterment of villages which were not receiving developmental benefits.
Thus, after hearing the parties, the SC ordered, “Prima facie single judge has not furnished any reason for the interim order and whether the MoUs will require parliamentary approval is a distinct issue. But an interim order staying MoU was not warranted. Thus, the interim order of the single judge is hereby stayed. Issue notice to the respondents. Liberty to serve the central agency.”
The bench was headed by CJI DY Chandrachud. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had mentioned the matter before the bench comprising the CJI and Justices JB Pardiwala and PS Narasimha.
The SC also issued notices to the four people who had originally moved the High Court against the execution of the MoU on various grounds including that the settlement breached Article 3 of the Constitution.
Article 3 empowers Parliament to make a law related to the formation of new states and alteration of the boundaries of existing states.
A single judge bench of the High Court had ordered an interim stay on physical demarcation or erection of boundary posts on the ground following the inter-state border pact.
Later, a division bench of the High Court refused to interfere with the order of the single judge bench, prompting the petitioners to an appeal in the top court.
