Mizoram MLA Rashik Mohan Chakma to file review petition against SC judgment on dual membership in ADCs, state assemblies

Guwahati: Rashik Mohan Chakma, MLA and a Member of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (ADC) of Mizoram, will file a review petition against the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9212 of 2026, Rustom Chakma v. The State of Mizoram & Ors., dated 20 July 2026 regarding dual membership and office of profit.

Rustom Chakma had filed a petition before the Supreme Court after the Gauhati High Court dismissed his petition, holding that Articles 101 and 190 of the Constitution do not bar a member of an ADC from becoming a member of a State Legislative Assembly. The High Court had relied upon the opinions of the Election Commission of India and the Governor of Mizoram.

In its judgment dated 20 July 2026, which has now been released, the Supreme Court, while directing the Chakma ADC and Mara ADC to restore the prohibition on dual membership held, “we are of the considered opinion that all the ADCs ought to be at par for the purpose of bar against dual membership. At present, the Lai ADC still retain the bar against dual membership of the ADC and the Legislative Assembly.”


Also read | Tata Sons Chairman Chandra mulls exit before 'uncertain' AGM

“This observation is not factually correct as the Lai ADC had removed the bar on dual membership in the ADCs and the State Legislative Assembly by repealing its Constitution and Conduct of Business Rules of 2002 in 2010 wherein it only barred membership in two or more Autonomous District Councils and not in the State Legislative Assembly. This material fact was concealed by petitioner Rustom Chakma to secure a favourable judgment, and he interfered with the administration of justice.” – stated Rasik Mohan Chakma.

“This material fact also could not be brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by me as the Hon’ble apex Court disposed of the petition at the first hearing, after issuing notice, and I was not given another opportunity to file a written reply. This in my considered view is a violation of the principles of natural justice.”- further stated Chakma.

Furthermore, the petition filed by Rustom Chakma concerned the question of holding an office of profit, which is governed by Article 191(1) of the Constitution. Only Parliament and the State Legislatures have the power to enact laws relating to disqualification on the ground of holding an office of profit.

Also read | New foreign investment rule looms over AIFs, foreign investors

Moreover, under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Autonomous District Councils do not have law making powers with respect to the qualification or disqualification of membership and the ADC have legislative powers only with respect to only “(a) the allotment, occupation or use, or the setting apart, of land, other than any land which is a reserved forest, for the purposes of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or town; (b) the management of any forest not being a reserved forest; (c) the use of any canal or water-course for the purpose of agriculture; (d) the regulation of the practice of jhum or other forms of shifting cultivation; (e) the establishment of village or town committees or councils and their powers; (f) any other matter relating to village or town administration, including village or town police and public health and sanitation; (g) the appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen; (h) the inheritance of property; (i) marriage and divorce; and (j) social customs.”

As the ADCs expressly do not have law making powers with respect to the qualification or disqualification of membership, particularly matters relating to an office of profit, the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be legally complied with. The Hon’ble apex court ought to reconsider this particular aspect too.

Furthermore, the issue does not only pertain to the Lai, Chakma and Mara ADCs in Mizoram, it equally concerns other seven ADCs under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India namely Bodoland Territorial Council, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and Dima Hasao Autonomous District Council in Assam; Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council and Garo Hills Autonomous District Council in Meghalaya and Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) in Tripura. They equally ought to be given an opportunity of hearing.