SC asks Mizoram’s Chakma, Mara ADCs to reconsider dual membership rule

The Supreme Court has directed the Chakma and Mara Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Mizoram to reconsider rules that currently allow their members to simultaneously hold membership of the state Legislative Assembly.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana passed the order while disposing of an appeal filed by Rustom Chakma challenging a February 4, 2026, judgment of the Gauhati High Court’s Aizawl Bench.

The case concerned Rule 4 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2003, which removed the earlier restriction barring a person from simultaneously being a member of the Chakma ADC and the Mizoram Legislative Assembly.

The Supreme Court noted that the Sixth Schedule provides for three Autonomous Districts in Mizoram — the Chakma, Mara and Lai ADCs. While the Chakma and Mara ADC rules had removed the bar on dual membership through amendments in 2003, the Lai ADC continued to retain the restriction.

The court said the three ADCs should be placed at par with regard to the bar on dual membership.

It therefore directed the Chief Executive Member of the Chakma ADC, as well as the Chief Executive Member and Chairperson of the Mara ADC, to consider whether the amended rules should be recalled and the original provisions restored.

The court directed that an appropriate decision be taken within three months. If the matter is not resolved within the stipulated period, Rustom Chakma or the Mizoram government may approach the Supreme Court again.

The Supreme Court's order effectively set aside the Gauhati High Court judgment to the extent indicated and disposed of the appeal.

The dispute originated with a PIL filed by Rustom Chakma challenging the constitutional validity of the amended rule. The Gauhati High Court had dismissed the challenge, holding that Articles 101 and 190 of the Constitution did not bar an ADC member from also becoming a member of the state Legislative Assembly.

The Supreme Court, however, observed that the issue required consideration in light of the differing rules governing the three ADCs and emphasised the need for parity among them.