Fourth delimitation in Manipur: An impact analysis

By Prof. R.K. Narendra Singh

Decision rooted false documents ended everything.

People never realize significance of decision until it turns erroneous.

 

Abstract

Delimitation exercise is a mandatory for representative democracy making territorial grouping of proportionate peoples by fixings or boundaries of territorial constituencies in a country or a province having a legislative body. Since in 1952, 1963 and 1973, the delimitations of the entire country conducted under the relevant Delimitation Commission Acts based on respective immediate preceding census’s figures. Thereafter such regular exercise deferred supposed to base on the following two decadal censuses but the fourth one had on the row in 2002, except in four northeastern states i.e., Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, based on Census 2001. The main reason of deferred of delimitation was disproportionate population sizes hovered over the states of India that was mainly due to indifference of Family Planning Programs (FPF) performance within and between States and Union teritories. If delimitation exercise were performed based on Census 1981 and 1991, the outcomes might be creating havoc among the states especially between South and North blocks as the former might had loss their seats in the Parliament due to decreasing  population as adopting FPP effectively while antagonistically the latter gain the seats due to high fertility during the decades. The decision of differed is fully justified that uphold the objective of delimitation of constituencies i.e., proportionate political representation of region, caste, minority, etc., in policymaking bodies. The reason for left out of four North Eastern states in fourth Delimitation of India was the security issues, as Central Government gave reason for; the another undisclosed one was the Foreigner Issues in Assam (1979-1985) due to influx of illegal migrants. If it has had happen, Assam might have largely lost its political representation of sons of the soil. In particular, in Manipur there was a public hue and cry against unreliability of Census 2001figure as nine sub-divisions of the three hill districts had far beyond natural population growth. And eventually the matter was also heard in the Courts of Law. Finally, the Census Authority of India adjusted only the controversial population figures of the three sub-divisions of Senapati district in their final Census Report 2001. Indeed, there is no chance of classifying the adjusted figures in terms of census parameters considered like age, caste, religion, village, fertility, mortality, migration, etc., and thus in their final Census Report 2001 of Manipur published after excluding the population of the controversial three sub-divisions – Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul – of Senapati district. It is very much loud and clear that the Census 2001 figure of Manipur is not the exact one, something manipulated in compromised comportment. However, these smokes of havoc in the mind of public were subsided as Central Government deferred the exercise in four North-Eastern states by Notification bearing S.O.283 (E) dated, 8^th February 2008 deferring the process of delimitation for the four North-eastern states. Secondly, as the 84^th Amendment Act of 2001 have froze the total number of seats in Look Sabah and State Assemblies with the result the fourth Delimitation Commission could not increase in Lok Sabha’s and State Assemblies in proportionate to the population increase as per Census 2001 published. The frozen of seats would remain until 2026. Then the public outburst of hue and cry turns into melody song for the last 18 years since the 84^th Amendment Act made in 2002. Now the same story is replay as the Government has cancelled its earlier Notification (S.O. 283 (E) dated, 8^th February 2008) which has deferred delimitation by an Order No. 903 (E) dated 28^th February 2020. Moreover, the Government constituted the Delimitation Commission for delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies in the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland under section 3 of the Delimitation Act, 2002. The Commission will delimit the constituencies of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, base on Census 2011(latest one) instead of 2001 and of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland in accordance with the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002. Under the Delimitation Act, 2002, the commission would make only to readjust the division of each state and union territory into territorial constituencies for the purpose of Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections base on Census figures of 2001(old one). Now the question arises whether the forthcoming delimitation exercise in Manipur would give proportionate political representation especially in State Legislative Assembly, as the Census 2001 figure of Manipur is counterfeit as well as excluded population of three sub-divisions in the final total population of Census 2001 (a details, specially caste, is necessitated while entitlement calculation for assembly seats). The crux of the matter call for the present article is to analyze the impact of delimitation in Manipur under the Delimitation Act, 2002 demographically. It shows that through the forthcoming delimitation, four unreserved (UR) entitlement assembly seats go to reserved seats of schedule tribe (ST); and the existing three valley seats would be added to their counterpart hill districts. Besides, the finding suggests that the proposed exercise base on Census 2001is inconsistent and unjustified technically. Secondly, the Delimitation Commission of India is a high power and independent body and therefore constitutionally whatsoever their Orders after completion of the process cannot be challenged even to the Courts of Law and therefore only option left is to make delimitation defer until a fresh and reliable census enumeration take place, likely to be based on Census 2031 figures.  

Key Words:  Delimitation Commission of India; Census 2001; Parliament & Assembly seats

Introduction:

Delimitation simply meansto sketching out, drawing or tracing  the boundaries of the various Lok Sabha and assembly constituencies with the main objective of making the proportionate political representation in policy making bodies like in the Parliament and in the concerned State Legislative Assemblies and eventually formulates equal population representation from every seat. The process of  delimitation is performed by the Delimitation Commission or the Boundary Commission of India which is a commission established by the Government of India under the provisions of the Delimitation Commission Act. The Commission of India is a high power and independent body whose orders cannot be challenged even to the Courts of law. These orders come into force on a date to be specified by the President of India. The copies of its orders would be laid before the House of the People and the State Legislative Assembly concerned, but no modifications are permissible.

In the past, there were four Delimitation Commissions in the country viz., in 1952 under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952, in 1963 under Delimitation Commission Act, 1962, in 1973 under Delimitation Act, 1972 and in 2002 under Delimitation Act, 2002. However, in 1976 the Central Government had deferred delimitation process until after the 2001Census so that states’ family planning programs would not affect their political representation in the Lok Sabha. During the Emergency, through 42^nd Amendment to Indian Constitution the government froze the total Parliamentary and Assembly seats in each state until 2001 Census. Due to the imbalanced performance of family planning programs during and after the Emergency over the states, it might led to large discrepancies in the size of constituencies, with the largest having over three million electors, and the smallest less than 50,000. For instance, the states which had implemented family planning widely like Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Punjab would stand to lose many parliamentary seats representation while states with poor family planning programs and higher fertility rates like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan would unfavorably gain many of the seats transferred from better performing states.

The present delimitation of parliamentary constituencies has been done based on Census 2001figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. However, the Constitution of India was specifically amended as 84^th Amendment in 2002 not to have delimitation of constituencies until the first census after 2026. Thus, the present constituencies carved out on the basis of 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026 and therefore total number of seats in each state is froze till 2026.

After 2002 Delimitation exercise, the Central government might expect that uniform population growth rate would be achieved throughout the country by the year 2026 and such exercise were deferred until 2026. Therefore, the fifth would be conducted after Census 2031. In the meantime, in the forthcoming election for newly formed Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, their delimitation process is constitutionally badly needed in one hand and on the other, the left out of four North Eastern states i.e., Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh would also be simultaneously conducted their delimitation in the fourth delimitation. However, the former would be conducted under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, base on Census 2011 and the latter under the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002 base on Census 2001 figure.

The main objective of delimitation is to make the proportionate political representation in policymaking bodies in Parliament and in State Legislative Assembly. Whatsoever the reasons might be it should not hamper representative democracy which is the motto of delimitation of constituencies by the Delimitation Commission of India. If there is any discrepancy in the part of the process, it violates the sanity of representative democracy. There are two components to be taken care off while doing exercises. They are Census data on which entire process base upon, and sincerity and honesty in the part of Commission to drawing or tracing  the boundaries of the constituencies. Indeed the delimitation exercise for Assam, Manipur, Arunachal and Nagaland would be based on Census 2001 data as it follows the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. However, the Census 2001 data of Manipur for some of the sub-divisions of the districts of the state were quite distorted and their figures were finally adjusted in final report. Thus the proposed delimitation exercised base on Census 2001 for Manipur is unjustified and consequence upon it is suggested that such exercise would be defer till 2026 as 84^thAmendment to Indian Constitution in 2002 states that  not to have delimitation in the country till the first census after 2026.

The Indian Parliament has two Houses viz., the Lower House known as Look Sabah (House of the People) and Upper House, Raja Sabah.  Look Sabah has sanctioned member strength of 543 those are directly elected by citizens of India across the country. Since inception, 2 additional members of the Anglo-Indian community were also nominated by the President of India on the advice of Government of India, which was abolished in January 2020 by the 104^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019. The maximum strength of the Look Sabah  would be 552 members while the Raja Sabha can have a maximum of 250 members. At present Lok Sabha has a sanctioned strength of 245 members, of which 233 are elected from States and Union Territories and 12 are nominated by the President. The number of members from a state depends on its population.

      Presently Manipur has two members in the Lok Sabha  out of which one is reserved for ST (outer parliamentary constituency) and another unreserved (inner parliamentary constituency and another lone member in Rajya Sabha in the Parliament.

 

Results and observations:

 

      In order to study the pros and cons of the 4^th Delimitation being initiated in Manipur needs a detail appraisal on the population profile of the state. In this regards, a brief district-wise population profile of Manipur for the Census years 1991 and 2001 including adjusted population of Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul is set forth in table-1.

 

Table-1

District-wise population with decadal % growth rate

District	Population  (1991)	Population  (2001)	Decadal variation	Decadal % growth rate
Imphal East	330,460	394,876	64,416	19.49
Imphal West	380,801	444,382	63,581	16.70
Bishnupur	180,773	208,368	27,595	15.27
Thoubal	293,958	364,140	70,182	23.87
Total	1,185,992	1,411,766	225,774	19.03
Senapati	208,406	283,621*	75,215	36.09
Tamenglong	86,278	111,499	25,221	29.23
Churachandpur	176,184	227,905	51,721	29.36
Chandel	71,014	118,327	47,313	15.27
Ukhrul	109,275	140,778	31,503	28.83
Total	651,157	882,130	230,973	35.47
Grand total	1,837,149	2,293,896	456,747	24.86

* including controversial adjusted population of Mao-Maram, Paomata & Purul (127,108).

           

            The decadal growth rate (%) of the Manipur state for 1991-2001 is 24.86% which is quite higher than the national figure of 21.54%. The rate for valley districts is just 19.03 as against 35.47 of hill districts and the variation is quite significant. Thus, it could be concluded that the population growth of hill is much higher than that of valley. Within the valley districts there is significant variation observed with highest pertained to Thoubal district (23.87%) and lowest to Bishnupur  district (15.27) while a significant is witnessed within the hill district as Chandel district retained the lowest (15.27%) and Senapati district, the highest (36.09%).

 

Table-2

9 Sub-divisions with abnormal decadal % growth rate

based on Provisional Population, 2001

District	Sub-division	Population  (1991)	Population (2001)		Decadal % growth rate based on
			Provisional	Final	Prov. figure	Final Figure
Senapati	Mao-Maram	49,676	120,774	69,131	143.12	39.16
	Paomata	19,448	43,299	27,065	122.63	39.16
	Purul	22,213	59,705	30,912	168.78	39.16
	Saitu Gamphzol	28,327	43,612	No change	53.95	53.95
Chandel	Chakpikarong	21,582	46,998	No change	117.76	117.76
	Moreh	20,085	32,513	No change	61.87	61.87
	Machi	10,803	17,076	No change	58.06	58.06
	Chandel HQ	18,544	26,127	No change	40.89	40.89
Ukhrul	Kasom Khullen	6,341	10,426	No change	64.42	64.42
Total		197,019	400,530	303,860	103.29	54.22

 

            There are nine sub-divisions four each in Senapati and Chandel districts and a lone in Uhkrul district of Manipur that these populations in 2001 Census were unacceptably high and therefore it becomes the matter of fascinating debate academically. The overall decadal growth rate for those nine sub-divisions at 2001 based on Census provisional figure found 103.29%, which is an absurd figures (abnormally high), out of which Purul has as high as 168.78% and Chandel HQ, as low as 40.89%. It is worthwhile to mention that no country in the world whose decadal growth rate is above 100% and Syria is the exceptional lone country having a little above 70 % and all others below 40%. However, the four sub-divisions – Purul, Mao-Maram, Paomata and Chakpikarong – have contentedly higher than 100%, and even the lowest among them i.e., Chandel HQ has above 40%. How these have had happen, no appropriate answer is pronounced by any authority till date.

 In fact, a high population growth of a society or community has always attributing some demographic components like exceptional high fertility, low mortality, high influx, low educational level, low standard of living, so and so forth. Without these abnormal demographic behaviors, the population alone cannot go up on its own, and in other words, the population is the outcome of these components. However, in case of erstwhile subdivisions, nothing abnormal demographic components were noticed; and the patters were more or less similar to other sub-divisions of the state then how was it happen? Whether was it a natural growth or exaggerated one made with vested interest? It might be being answered only through thorough technical analysis as it is an academic issue.

Finally, the Census Authority of India adjusted the figures of only three selective sub-divisions of Senapati district viz., Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul out of the 9-controversal sub-divisions without proper recounting in its final Census Report 2001. It was just an eyewash. Interestingly, a figure of 96,670 was subtracted from the total population of 223,778 (provisional) and making final population (127,108) of the three, which sarcastically entailed the three sub-divisions have same decadal growth rate of 39.16% each.It established the fact that the final Census report of the three sub-divisions of Senapati district is not the exact population figures, rather highly negotiated and manipulated ones.  Secondly, several series of final Census report of India 2001 of Manipur state excluded the population of the controversial three sub-divisions viz., Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul of Senapati district. It is because of the fact that the adjusted figures could not be classified according to the census parameters considered like age, caste, religion, fertility, mortality, etc. Henceforth, the population of Manipur state reflected in Census 2001 is not the true population figure of the state. Further, while calculating entitlement of seats for the House of the people (Parliament) and the State Legislative Assembly, caste-wise population is one of the essential ingredients. Therefore, the delimitation exercises on the basis of false population figures and on the estimated caste-wise figures might certainly be violating the main objective of the Delimitation Commission of India that it maintains people proportionate political representation in policy making bodies like in the House of the people (Parliament) and in the State Legislative Assembly.

 

            Table-2 deals with existing entitlement of seats for parliament and state assembly of Manipur since 1952. The maximum strength of the members in the Lok Sabha in the India Parliament would be 552 but at present strength are 543 members only. If the Delimitation Commission for the  forthcoming delimitation in Manipur allowed to increase one seat (make 3) then it is likely to give the democratic rights to the voters of eight Assembly segments (seven in Thoubal district and one in Jiribam district) who have been being denied the right to contest the Parliamentary elections. For this, first the Delimitation Act, 2002 needs to be amended which is next to impractical. On the other side of the coin, if the Delimitation Commission has followed strictly the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 2002, there is no chance of increase in Lok Sabha seat as it implies only readjust the division into territorial constituencies for Lok Sabha and State Assembly.

 

Table-3

Existing entitlement of seats

in the House of the people (Parliament) & Assembly

Year	Status	Parliament			Assembly
		Total no. of seat	Unreserved (inner)	Reserved (ST) (outer)	Total no. of seat	Unreserved (UR)	Reserved
							SC	ST
1952	UT	2	1	1	–	–	–	–
1962	UT	2	1	1	–	–	–	–
1967	UT	2	1	1	30	21	–	9
1972	State	2	1	1	60	40	1	19
2002	State	2	1	1	60	40	1	19

 

Based on the 4^th Delimitation Commission’s Guidelines and Methodology the followings are theprobable entitlement seats for Manipur State Assembly.

            First, the entire Manipur State is divided into theentitlement seats i.e., 60 for Assembly and 2 for House of the People. Then the number is assigned for Unreserved and Reverse including SC and ST according to their population. Further, allocation of number of constituencies to each district is to be made based on the total population of the district divided by the average population per constituency and it comes 38,232 approximately per assembly constituency.

 

Table-4

Caste-wise probable entitlement assembly seats

through delimitation, 2020

Caste	Population  (2001)	Population composition (%)	Entitlement assembly seats
			Fractions	Round off to
Un Reserved	1,365,610	59.53	35.71	36 (40)
ST	741,141+127,108*=868,249	37.85	22.71	23 (19)
SC	60,037	2.61	1.57	1(1)
Total	2,293,896	100	60	60 (60)

* Controversial adjusted population of Mao-Maram, Paomata & Purul.

ǂ Figure within parenthesis indicates existing entitlement of seats.

 

            Caste-wise distribution of probable entitlement assembly seats is calculated based on their population (shown in table-4). Exact figure of ST population of Manipur in 2001 is not available as Census final population total of Manipur classifying in terms of caste excluded population of Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul. However the population of Sanapati district including and excluding the three sub-divisions are 2,293,896 and 2,166,788 respectively and the discrepancy figure is certainly the population of the three sub-divisions i.e., 127,108. Again on the assumption that all the population in the three sub-divisions are ST, the caste-wise probable entitlement assembly seats is estimated, shown in table-4.

 

            The UR/ General including all castes other than ST an SC has highest population composition (59.53%), followed by ST (37.85%) and lowest pertains to SC with a percentage of 2.61. The whole population is proportionately distributed into 60 assembly seats in terms of caste. It is observed that  from the 3^rd Delimitation  (based on  Census1971) to the proposed 4^th Delimitation (base on  Census 2001), UR might be losing 4 seats, the same adding to ST while SC maintains the same existing entitlement seat that is one seat. The distribution is made in terms of district-wise, three valley seats go to its counterpart hill districts.

 

            It may be mentioned that Imphal West district includes a lone SC seat and a lone of UR pertains to Senapati district. Through the forthcoming Delimitation, theentitlement assembly seats for three-valley districts viz., Imphal East, Imphal West, Bishnupur districts may reduce by one seat each from the existing seats. For instance, Imphal East may reduce from 11 to 10; Imphal West from 12 to 11; Bishnupur from 6 to 5 and lone Thoubal district manage to maintain status quo as 10 seat. On contrary, one seat is added to Senapati district making 7 from the existing 6 (including 1 UR); one seat each goes to Chandel and Ukhrul enhancing to 3 from 2 and to 4 from 3 respectively.

 

 

Table-5

District-wise probable entitlement assembly seats

through delimitation, 2020

District	Population  (2001)	Existing entitlement seats	Probable entitlement seat	Remark
Imphal East	394,876	11	10	-1
Imphal West	444,382	12+1 (SC)	11+1(SC)	-1
Bishnupur	208,368	6	5	-1
Thoubal	364,140	10	10	–
Total	1,411,766	40	37	-3
Senapati	283,621	5+1 (UR)	7	+1
Tamenglong	111,499	3	3	–
Churachandpur	227,905	6	6	–
Chandel	118,327	2	3	+1
Ukhrul	140,778	3	4	+1
Total	882,130	20	23	+3

– Indicates lose; + Indicates gain

 

Discussion: 

 

To delimit the constituencies of the House of the People and Manipur State Legislative Assembly by the Delimitation Commission constituted by the Government of India is constitutional procedure, nobody can deny. However, the delimitation exercise would not violet the sanity of the core objectives of the delimitation so as making the proportionate political representation of the people. For that, time and again the process is based on the most recent Census figure (just preceding Census prior to delimitation) so as it might depict a very recent, correct and clean population figure. If such exercise performs base on old Census data (not representing present population) and/or incorrect Census data (representing warp population), the outcome of the Commission could not ascertain an equal number of divisions of the real people in the Parliament and Assembly. Besides, the process stands contrary to the very idea behind conducting delimitation on the most recent and accurate Census data. Therefore, not only the whole exercises goes in vein but also it is another form of injustice against the spirit of representative democracy. The present argument is in agreement with the argument of the case against the impugned Order No. 903 (E) dated 28^th February 2020 for delimitation in Assam in the Supreme Court bearing W.P. (C) No. 454 of 2020; and the case is already admitted by the Apex Court.

Manipur is not exception about the story of Census 2001. It is too old to represent a real scenario of the present population. Secondly, about the inconsistent data, in conjunction with the public outcry, the matter ran pillar to post and finally knocked to legal doors. It may be recalled that on Jan. 19, 2007 in connection with W. P. (PIL) No. 16 of 2005, the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench made with the following judgments:

“The respondents (authorities) are hereby directed to re-count the heads of the population in the 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 Reoprt 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 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 judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) in SLP (C) No. 11813 of 2007 and during the pendency the Notification bearing S.O. 283 (E) dated, 8^th February 2008 came to defer the process of delimitation for the four North-Eastern states. After series of legal battles, all related cases were dismissed and disposed by the Apex Court on 21^st August 2014 upholding the earlier Order dated, 8^th February 2008.

There is a significant variation of fertility levels among ethnic groups of people: one community has average of around one child per couple or hardly two while other enjoying on an average of more than 5 children per couple. Thus, any delimitation or re-adjustmentof number of seats of constituencies takes place in such situation it would deny right of the community who prefer small family norm that the Government of India encourages to achieved Millennium Development Goals. If it happens to continue there will be a fertility race among the communities. Keeping these in view, the Government of India had differed 4^th Delimitation for a period of two decades (1981-1991) till 2001 which was supposed to be held twice just after the publications of Census 1981 and 1991. If it were happen timely, most of the parliamentary seats of states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Punjab would gone to UP, Bihar and Rajasthan since the former block has low fertility whilst very high fertility pertained to latter block. Still the fertility pattern is not uniform over the States and UTs of the country and therefore another amendment i.e., 84^th Amendment froze the total number of seats in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. It would continue to freezing of seats till 2026. The reason behind is that as the sustainable population policy has been being implemented by the Government then it is expected that uniform population growth rate would be achieved throughout the country by the year 2026.  On this line the forthcoming delimitation and re-adjustmentof number of seats of constituencies in Manipur should also be deferred till 2026.

Since the Foreigners’ Permit System was abolished in the state on November 18, 1950, it lifted all the barricades to immigrants and in-migrants. In 1980s the contentious Anti Foreigners issue was erupted and consequence upon a 16 clauses draft agreement was signed on August 5, 1980 but the Government never implemented the agreement such as detection and deportation of foreigners. Again, in 1994s, same agitation was erupted then at last, the second memorandum of agreement was made on November 9, 1994. Still government never full filled its promise in letter and spirit in spite of public uproar. One of the article entitled “Impact of NRC Updation (Assam) on Manipur: A dynamics of migration” which was published in Kangla Lanpung 2018; XII(I) have cited that the number of migrants who already entered in the state since 1951 to 2001 was 785,376. It was estimated under certain assumption that the growth rate of Manipur has followed the growth rate of gold standard (world). The figure was 398,199 when the growth rate of Manipur has followed the national growth rate (India). Whatsoever and whosoever the figure may be, huge number of migrants were included in the Census 2001 is quite loud and clear. Without eliminating those migrants, the outcome of the purposed Delimitation base on Census 2001 figure might be null and void.

           

Another legitimate argument is the dreadful law and order situations still hovering in the state.  For instance, the Disturbed Area Status under the controversial Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has been imposed since September 8, 1980 till date. It implies that the state still faces a serious security issues. So why should the Government of India has issued a Notification dated on February 28, 2020 leading to initiate delimitation excises in Manipur which is fully contradict to the Delimitation Order, 2008 through which the Commission has completed the delimitation exercise in the entire country except in these four northeastern states including Manipur on the grown of security issues. Thus, the purposed initiative is hasty and inappropriate ones.

 

Conclusion:

The fact and circumstances arrived in the article it may be concluded that the impugned Order  No.  S.O.  903 (E) dated, February 28, 2020 published by Ministry of Law and Justice that had cancelled its earlier notifications which deferred delimitation in Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh due to security issues, saying the exercise could be carried out “now” as the previous circumstances cease to exist should be made revoke through appropriate constitutional means, probably through legal intervention. The Commission is a powerful and independent body and thus once delimitation process is start and complete whose orders cannot be challenged in any Courts of Law. Only option left is to defer the exercise on the line of84^th Amendment, that not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first Census after 2026 through legal intervention. The same legal help has already been taken up in Assam.

There are enough evidences and circumstances to keep aside the impugned Order and eventually defer the exercise till the publication of Census 2031. The main ingredient of delimitation is Census data that has attributed with lot of imperfect components. For instance Census report 2001of Manipur is too old and its report is fragmented and incorrect ones. It included a huge number of migrants that should be excluded first before delimitation. Significant variation of growth patterns among the communities are witnessed in the Census 2001 and therefore entitlement assembly seats could not be maintained equilibrium position among the diverse communities that might be threatening to the harmony and integrity of the state. Thus, it indirectly indicates not suitable in the present juncture. This time is also not ripped enough in terms of law and order situation to conduct such mega exercise in the state.

To end with it is a wakeup call that through the purposed 4^th Delimitation, entitlement assembly seats for UR might be losing 4 out of existing 40 seats. The present population trend continues then by the 5^th Delimitation base on Census 2031, UR again might be losing another 4 seats: 3 go to ST and 1 goes to SC. This is not a healthy sign that would make chaos and anarchy among the various communities settled peacefully since time immemorial. To prevent the outburst of such social disorder, a proper and effective long term planning is highly call for that would maintain uniform growth pattern through uniform performance of Family Welfare Program, and through other Socio-Economic and Development programs. In short, the state needs a sustainable population policy immediately otherwise it might be obsolete. It is not an easy task but might only be turned into reality through the in-depth research outcomes of the Manipur State Population Commission (MSPC).

Need of the hour is to challenge the impugned Order through Courts of Law immediately and secondly, to make commission of MSPC at the earliest.

References:

1. Census of India. Census Report 1991, Manipur

 

2. Census of India. Provisional Census Report 2001, Manipur

 

3. Census of India. Final Census Report 2001, Manipur

 

4. Directorate of Eco. & Stat. Statistical Hand Book of Manipur. 2017

 

5. Narendra RK. Impact of NRC updation (Assam) on Manipur : a dynamics of migration. Kangla lanpung 2018; XII(I): 6-50.

 

6. SC issues notices to Centre, Assam om ple against delimitation process based on 2001 census. May 27, 2020.

 

7. Parliament of India. Available fromURL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_India

 

8. Delimitation commission for Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Manipur, Arunachal, Nagaland formed. Mar 6, 2020. Available fromURL:https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delimitation-commission-for-jammu-and-kashmir-assam-manipur-arunachal-nagaland-formed/articleshow/74518745.cms

 

9. SC WP (C) No. 454 0f 2020: Brelitha Marak & Ors Vs UoI & Ors

 

10. Tariq Bhat. Delimitation commission for J&K, Assam, Manipur, Arunachal, Nagaland formed. The WEEK, March 07, 2020. Available fromURL:https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/03/07/delimitation-commission-for-jk-assam-manipur-arunachal-nagaland-formed.html

 

11. K. Varma. Delimitation in India, Methodological Issues. Economic & Political Weekly, 2006.Available fromURL:https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/193715/7/chapter%205.pdf

 

12. Delimitation Commission of India.Available fromURL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delimitation_Commission_of_India

 

13. 2007(2) GLT 577: MPCC & Ors. Vs. UoI

 

________________________________________

The author of the article is a Renowned Demographer, and HOD of Biostatistics, RIMS, Imphal.