The Supreme Court has directed the Chakma and Mara Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Mizoram to reconsider rules that currently permit their members to simultaneously serve in the state Legislative Assembly.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the direction while disposing of an appeal filed by Rustom Chakma against 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. The amendment had removed an earlier restriction preventing a person from simultaneously holding membership 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 councils removed the restriction on dual membership through amendments in 2003, the Lai ADC continued to retain the bar.
The bench said the three councils should have parity in their rules concerning dual membership.
It directed the Chief Executive Member of the Chakma ADC and the Chief Executive Member and Chairperson of the Mara ADC to consider whether the amended provisions should be withdrawn and the original restrictions restored.
The authorities have been asked to take an appropriate decision within three months. If the issue remains unresolved after that period, Rustom Chakma or the Mizoram government may approach the Supreme Court again.
The apex court’s order effectively set aside the Gauhati High Court judgment to the extent indicated and disposed of the appeal.
The dispute arose from a public interest litigation filed by Rustom Chakma challenging the constitutional validity of the amended rule. The Gauhati High Court had rejected the challenge, holding that Articles 101 and 190 of the Constitution did not prevent an ADC member from simultaneously becoming a member of the state Legislative Assembly.
The Supreme Court, however, held that the issue warranted reconsideration in view of the differing rules governing Mizoram’s three autonomous district councils and stressed the need to maintain parity among them.
