Solicitor general Tushar Mehtaargued for the Meghalaya government’s appeal against the HC order, telling a bench of three judges headed by CJI DY Chandrachud that it was a sovereign act between states to delineate boundaries fairly. fair and transparent that HC cannot interfere while entertaining the petition.
“Any matter concerning the change of boundaries or matters concerning the exchange of areas between two countries is a purely political matter concerning the political management of the country. and its federal constituent units. The aforementioned activity has no judicial nuance and is entirely within the exclusive domain of the Executive. “Any such interference or maintenance of the Memorandum of Understanding completely violates the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution,” he said.
The bench still upheld HC’s order saying that “basically, we see no reason why HC should continue to implement the MOU”. Appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff before HC, attorney Pragyan P Sharma told the court that the Memorandum of Understanding could not be implemented because it resulted in the redrawing of the boundaries. He said redrawing state boundaries must be approved by Congress under Article 3 of the Constitution. SG said Article 3 cannot apply to this case because the Memorandum of Understanding does not redraw the boundary but defines a boundary that does not exist for 50 years
According to the Memorandum of Understanding, signed last year, boundaries have been settled in 6 of the 12 disputed areas — Upper TarabariReserve forests of Gazang, Hahim, Boklapara, Khanapara-Pilangkata and retacherra.
