JUDGMENT & ORDER : Kaushik Goswami, J. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S.R Rabha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) and Ms. P. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for the State of Assam, Mr. R.K.D Choudhury, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India, Mr. T. Deuri, learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, WPT & BC appearing for respondent No. 4. 2] By filing the instant Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as “PIL”) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying inter alia that clause 3.1(ii), clause 3.1 (iii), clause 3.2, clause 3.3, clause 3.4, clause 4.4, clause 7.2 and clause 8.1 of the Tri-Partite Memorandum of rd Settlement (3 Bodo Accord) (hereinafter referred to as “MoS”) signed on 27.01.2020 between the Union Government of India, State Government of Assam and the leaders of ABSU, UBPO and NDFB (four factions) be declared as ultravires the Constitution of India. 3] The gamut of the case is as follows:- The Government of India with a view to stop the violence and restore normalcy and bring about an amicable solution to the problems of the Bodo people held a series of meetings with the Government of Assam as well as with the leaders of All Bodo Students Union and Bodo People Action Committee, which finally culminated in signing of the "Bodo Accord" on 20.02.1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1st Bodo Accord). The basic st objectives of the 1 Bodo Accord were to provide maximum autonomy within the framework of the Constitution of India to Bodos for social, economic, educational, ethnic and cultural advancement. 4] Thereafter, the Bodoland Autonomous Council Bill (hereinafter referred to as the “BAC Bill”) was introduced in the Assam State Assembly on 5th April 1993 and the said BAC Bill was enacted as Bodoland Autonomous Council Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1993”). The said Act, 1993 provided for the establishment of a Bodoland Autonomous Council within the State of Assam with maximum autonomy within the framework of the Constitution of India. The said Act, 1993 provided for the establishment of a Bodoland Autonomous Council within the State of Assam with maximum autonomy within the framework of the Constitution of India. 5] During the year, 1999 when India was at war with Pakistan over the issue of Kargil, to facilitate the movement of Indian troops stationed in Bodoland to the nations north-western borders, the Bodol and Liberation Tiger (hereinafter referred to as the “BLT”) was the only underground outfit of the northeast to declare a unilateral ceasefire again during that period so that the country's sovereignty is protected. 6] In response to the ceasefire declared by BLT, the Government initiated informal talks and on 15.03.2000 declared a ceasefire from its side. On 01.05.2000, formal tripartite talks involving the Government of India, Government of Assam and the BLT commenced. 7] On 10.02.2003, the Government of India held final talks with all the major Bodo groups like ABSU, BSS, BPAC, and also the elected representatives of both the State Assembly as well the Members of Parliament and thereafter the Government of India and the Government of Assam signed the MoS with the nd BLT(hereinafter referred to as “2 Bodo Accord”). The main objectives of the 2nd Bodo Accord were to create an autonomous self-governing body to be known as Bodoland Territorial Council (hereinafter referred to as “BTC”) within the State of Assam and to administer a territory spanning 3079 villages making four coterminous districts - Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 8] Pertinent also that the said Act, 1993 was repealed by the Assam nd Legislative Assembly on 04.04.2003 following the signing of the 2nd Bodo Accord. 9] Pursuant to the 2 Bodo Accord, the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India were amended by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act No 44 of 2003) on 08/09/2003. 10] Thereafter, the Government of Assam vide Notification No. TAD/BTC/161/2003/6 dated 31/10/2003 adopted and approved the MoS dated 10/02/2003 and resolved to extend the executive powers to 40 subjects/departments listed in Annexure III of the Accord. 10] Thereafter, the Government of Assam vide Notification No. TAD/BTC/161/2003/6 dated 31/10/2003 adopted and approved the MoS dated 10/02/2003 and resolved to extend the executive powers to 40 subjects/departments listed in Annexure III of the Accord. 11] Pursuant to consultation held with the BTC authority, the Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department, Government of Assam issued OM No. TAD/BTC/222/03/51 dated 16/10/2004 laying down the administrative procedure and modalities for the purpose of day-to-day administration in the BTC areas in respect of 39 subjects/departments transferred (excluding Relief & Rehabilitation). 12] Despite of the 1st Accord and 2nd Accord, ABSU and its associated organizations as well as various factions of NDFVB continued with the demand of separate statehood for which various negotiations were held with the Bodo organizations in order to finally solve their demands while keeping intact the territorial integrity of the state of Assam. 13] Accordingly, a Tripartite Accord (hereinafter referred to as the “3rd Bodo th Accord”) was signed on 27th January, 2020, by representatives of Bodo Organizations with the Central and Assam Governments. The Bodo parties to the agreement include the All-Bodo Students' Union (ABSU), the United Bodo People's Organisation (UBPO) and all the four factions of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB). 14] It is the specific case of the petitioners that several citizens and 3rd organizations have written to the Government opposing the 3rd Bodo Accord on the ground that this Accord presents a new model of power sharing and governance in Assam under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India which is quite detrimental to the interests and welfare of the Bodo people, however, no response has been received till date from the respondent authority. 15] Pursuant to the 3rd Bodo Accord, a notification No. TAD/BC/227/2020/51-A dated 28/09/2020 has been issued vide which the name "Bodoland Territorial Areas District" as specified in Part-I of the Table appended to Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule has been changed to "Bodoland Territorial Region". Further, vide a separate notification No. HMA-19/14/2020-Political (A)/Pt.1/25 dated 28/09/2020, a committee has been constituted under paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India for alteration of area of BTAD in pursuance of clause 3.1 of the MoS dated 27/01/2020. 16] It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos. Further, vide a separate notification No. HMA-19/14/2020-Political (A)/Pt.1/25 dated 28/09/2020, a committee has been constituted under paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India for alteration of area of BTAD in pursuance of clause 3.1 of the MoS dated 27/01/2020. 16] It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos. 22, 70, 82, 83 and 95 for self as also on behalf of the other co-villagers of their respective villages have in the meantime submitted their representations before the aforesaid committee stating therein that their villages should continue to remain within the existing territorial boundaries of BTC and that they oppose any move to exclude it from the same. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos. 18, 23,24,25,30,32, and 56 are the Village Headman (Gaon Bura) of their respective villages and that these villages lie on the bordering areas of BTC and may also get excluded if the aforesaid alleged illegally constituted committee has its way. It is the further case of the petitioners that the other petitioners belong to the bordering villages of BTC and there is every likelihood that their villages would be excluded from the BTC, thereby gravely injuring their rights and interests. 17] Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued Notification No. AAP136/2014/116 dated 19/01/2021, whereby the services of the Deputy Commissioners in the BTAD were partially placed with the BTC in respect of all developmental activities in their respective districts with regard to the responsibilities assigned to them by BTC authority. 18] Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued Order No. BTC/IBA-679/2020/46 dated 04/06/2021 vide which the Deputy Commissioners of Bodoland Territorial Region, viz. Deputy Commissioners of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri were entrusted with overall monitoring and supervision of schemes pertaining to 15 subjects entrusted with the BTC. The order further inter-alia stipulated that "The Deputy Commissioners will be responsible for oversight and supervision for district and sub-divisional level officials regarding implementation of various schemes by Govt. of India, Govt. of Assam and BTC authority for above mentioned subjects. Further, they will prepare an Annual Action Plan and get it approved by Principal Secretary, BTC with respect 10 the subjects entrusted above for the purpose of their performance appraisal 10 be forwarded annually to the Personnel Department, Govt. of Assam". of India, Govt. of Assam and BTC authority for above mentioned subjects. Further, they will prepare an Annual Action Plan and get it approved by Principal Secretary, BTC with respect 10 the subjects entrusted above for the purpose of their performance appraisal 10 be forwarded annually to the Personnel Department, Govt. of Assam". 19] Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 issued Notification No AR.38/2020/53 dated 10/06/2021 creating a new Administrative Department namely the "Welfare of Bodoland Department" with immediate effect. As per this notification, the broad mandate of this new Department inter-alia was that the Department will be the nodal Department for formulation and implementation of policies and programmes for welfare and all-round development of the people inhabiting in the Bodoland area under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India under Sixth Schedule Council in the State. 20] Situated thus, some of the petitioners herein had initially filed WP(C) 996/2021 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Apex rd Court assailing inter-alia the legality of the 3rd Bodo Accord signed on 27/01/2020, however, the same was withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court. 21] Pursuant to the aforesaid withdrawal, the petitioners herein in a meeting held on 09/11/2021 unanimously resolved to file a Writ Petition/Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court assailing the legality of the 3rd Bodo Accord and all consequential actions taken in pursuance of the aforesaid Accord. Accordingly, this instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed. 22] Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners in their personal as well as representative capacity of the majority of the indigenous people living in BTC has filed the instant PIL to draw the attention of rd this Court to the offending clauses of the 3rd Bodo Accord and the notifications nd issued thereof affecting the guarantees given under the 2nd Bodo Accord. 23] He further submits that the class of persons for whose benefit the present PIL is being filed are peaceful and law-abiding residence of the Bodoland, who are not capable to assess this Court due to financial and geographical constraints. He accordingly submits that the petitioners have locus standi to file the instant PIL and therefore, the PIL is maintainable. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. He accordingly submits that the petitioners have locus standi to file the instant PIL and therefore, the PIL is maintainable. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, para 82 (ii) Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 378 , para 2&3. 24] He further submits that BTC is a State within State with complete rd autonomy and hence, the impugned 3rd Bodo Accord and the two notifications dated 04/06/2021 and 10/06/2021 amounts to dilution of the very purpose of the creation of the BTC, which is ultravires of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the instant PIL is not premature as has been alleged by the State of Assam in view of the fact that the Commission was constituted to submit a report on the altercation of area under Bodoland Territorial Region (hereinafter referred to as “BTR”). He further submits that the Commission had already in the meantime submitted an interim report on inclusion of certain villages in the BTR and the said interim report has been notified by a Notification dated 31/12/2022 issued by the Government of Assam Welfare of Bodoland Department. He accordingly submits that it clearly reflects that they have acted on the report of the Commission. 25] He further submits that under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the executive power of the State is co-terminus with its legislative powers. He further submits that it is the BTC authority alone that has the power to legislate on the 40 subjects transferred to it and that the same is also recognized by the amendment of the Sixth Schedule made in 2003. Accordingly, he submits that the executive power of the State cannot extend to the subjects transferred to the BTC and therefore, Notifications dated 04/06/2021 and 10/06/2021 are without any authority of law. 26] He further submits that the impugned 3rd Bodo Accord as well as the impugned notifications are manifestly arbitrary, inasmuch as, that it seeks to take away the rights, absolute autonomy and the right of self-governance conferred on the Bodo people and the BTC authority by the Constitution of India itself. 26] He further submits that the impugned 3rd Bodo Accord as well as the impugned notifications are manifestly arbitrary, inasmuch as, that it seeks to take away the rights, absolute autonomy and the right of self-governance conferred on the Bodo people and the BTC authority by the Constitution of India itself. He further submits that the State through self-serving executive orders is trying to circumvent these Constitutional guarantees which certainly are not permissible in law. 27] He further submits that the impugned illegal action of the State amounts to undermining the concept of Federalism which is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in SR Bommai v. Union of India , reported in (1994) 3 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court has not only held that Federalism is a basic feature of our Constitution but also that in a democracy decentralization of power is an essential part of democracy. 28] He further submits that the rights of the Bodos which are recognized and guaranteed by peace accords as well as the Constitution of India have now been sought to be taken away. He further submits that this has been done by the impugned executive orders which directly and substantially affects the rights of the people and is contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1955 SC 549 , & 1955 (2) SCR 225 , that Fundamental Rights cannot be taken away by executive orders alone. 29] He further submits that the Commission formed vide Notification dated 28/09/2020 under paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule does not include the major stakeholders like the BFP, Bodo Sahitya Sabha, Civil Society etc. and as a matter of fact, it does not even include any members of NDFB or UBPO who are signatories to the MoS dated 27/01/2020. He further submits that the composition of the committee does not represent the Bodo Society and is thus flawed and illegal. He accordingly submits that thus, the very wide, excessive and unguided discretion vested upon the paragraph 14 Committee for the purpose of re-drawing the boundaries/altering the area of the present BTC areas is wholly illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the composition of the committee does not represent the Bodo Society and is thus flawed and illegal. He accordingly submits that thus, the very wide, excessive and unguided discretion vested upon the paragraph 14 Committee for the purpose of re-drawing the boundaries/altering the area of the present BTC areas is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 30] He further submits that the offending clauses do not have reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia and the classification based on only "majority non-tribal population" ipso facto violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, wherein the legislation/policy effectuates discrimination on the basis of the intrinsic and core identity of the individual i.e., he being a tribal or non-tribal. 31] In support of the aforesaid submission, he further relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:- i) Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR (1967) SC 1427. ii) Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481. iii) B.R. Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (2001) 7 SCC 231 iv) Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India , reported in (2018) 10 SCC 1 32] Per contra, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam submits that the instant PIL is purely politically motivated and is premature and therefore, is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He further submits that none of the rd alleged offending clauses of the 3 Bodo Accord violates the mandates of the Constitution of India and that the Accord postulates that more subjects be transferred to the BTC to ensure better hold of the Council in its matter and also enhance the scope for consultation in such matters. He further submits that the petitioners have failed to indicate which provision of the Constitution rd of India and in what manner any provisions have been violated by 3 Bodo Accord. He further submits that the petitioners have also failed to demonstrate any instance as to how the BTC powers have been diluted. He further submits rd that the 3 Bodo Accord does not in any manner violate any of the basic features of the Constitution of India including Federalism. 33] In support of his aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions:- i) Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349. ii) State of Jharkhand Vs. He further submits rd that the 3 Bodo Accord does not in any manner violate any of the basic features of the Constitution of India including Federalism. 33] In support of his aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions:- i) Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349. ii) State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma & Others, reported in 2022 SCCOnlineSC 1541. iii) State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 . iv) J&K National Panthers Party Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 228 . v) State of Punjab Vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another , reported in (2024) 1 SCC 384 . vi) Kuldip Nayar & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 1 . 34] Mr. T. Deuri and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Counsels appearing for the other respondents adopt the aforesaid arguments of Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam. 35] We have given our prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the contesting parties and have perused the materials available on record. We have also considered the authorities cited at the bar. 36] The issues involved in this PIL for adjudication are as: (i) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to maintain the instant PIL? (ii) Whether the rights of the Bodos which are recognized and guaranteed by peace accords as well as the Constitution of India is sought to be taken away rd by the offending clauses of the impugned 3 Bodo Accord? (iii) Whether the consequential notifications/orders i.e. 28.09.2020, 19.01.2021, 04.06.2021 and 10.06.2021 issued in terms of the offending rd clauses of the 3 Bodo Accord are illegal and arbitrary? 37] We shall now deal with the first issue i.e. locus standi as raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. PIL is primarily the innovation of the Judges of the Constitutional Court way back in 1970 in view of the pressing need for it. In such PIL, the common law prescription of a ‘person aggrieved’ is not a precondition for issuance of a writ or direction in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction therein. PIL is primarily the innovation of the Judges of the Constitutional Court way back in 1970 in view of the pressing need for it. In such PIL, the common law prescription of a ‘person aggrieved’ is not a precondition for issuance of a writ or direction in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction therein. In fact, it is a medium which was developed with judicial pronouncements to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people especially the poor, ignorant, socially or economically disadvantageous persons were infringed and who were unable to seek legal redress. In other words, PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature but co-operative and collaborative effort of the parties and an opportunity to the government to make basic human rights meaningful. However in such petition also the locus standi of the person who approaches the Court by way of a PIL is of relevance in as much as the same cannot be at the instance of a busybody or for personal gain or private profit or for political motivation. In other words, it is imperative for the member of the public who files a PIL to act bona fide. 38] Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and another , reported in 1981 Supp(1) SCC 87 . Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. Andre Rabie has warned that ‘political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process’ and we might add, through the political process, ‘may try to use the Courts to further their aims’. These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the Court has to be careful to avoid. Andre Rabie has warned that ‘political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process’ and we might add, through the political process, ‘may try to use the Courts to further their aims’. These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the Court has to be careful to avoid. It is also necessary for the Court to bear in mind that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The Court must take care to see that it does not overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the Executive and the Legislature by the Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the Court to deal with public interest litigation because it is a new jurisprudence which the Court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines which will change the complexion of the law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born. 25. Before we part with this general discussion in regard to locus standi, there is one point we would like to emphasise and it is that cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public injury by the act or omission of the State or a public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a member of the public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission, but if the person or specific class or group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act or omission, do not wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protest, the member of the public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at the instance of such member of the public would be to foist a relief on the person or specific class or group of persons primarily injured, which they do not want.” 39] Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Janata Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary and others , reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305 . Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “61. Though it is imperative to lay down clear guidelines and propositions; and outline the correct parameters for entertaining a Public Interest Litigation- particularly on the issue of locus standi yet no hard and fast rules have yet been formulated and no comprehensive guidelines have been evolved. There is also one view that such adumberation is not possible and it would not be expedient to lay down any general rule which would govern all cases under all circumstances. 62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a to litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold. 63. The traditional syntax of law in regard to locus standi for a specific judicial redress, sought by an individual person or determinate class or identifiable group of persons, is available only to that person or class or group of persons who has or have suffered a legal injury by reasons of violation of his or their legal right or a right legally protected, the invasion of which gives rise to actionability within the categories of law. In a private action, the litigation is bipolar; two opposed parties are locked in a confrontational controversy which pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events unlike in public action. The character of such litigation is essentially that of vindicating private rights, proceedings being brought by the persons in whom the right personally inhere or their legally constituted representatives who are thus obviously most competent to commence the litigation. 64. In contrast, the strict rule of locus standi applicable to private litigation is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives the right of locus standi to any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury, but who is not a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper; since the dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals or public interest by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any other oblique consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion like actiopopularis of Roman Law whereby any citizen could bring such an action in respect of a public delict. ……… 68. Though we have, in our country, recognised a departure from the strict rule of locus standi as applicable to a person in private action and broadened and liberalised the rule of standing and thereby permitted a member of the public, having no personal gain or oblique motive to approach the court for enforcement of the constitutional or legal rights of socially or economically disadvantaged persons who on account of their poverty or total ignorance of their fundamental rights are unable to enter the portals of the courts for judicial redress, yet no precise and inflexible working definition has been evolved in respect of locus standi of an individual seeking judicial remedy and various activities in the field of PIL. Probably, some reservation and diversity of approach to the philosophy of PIL among some of the Judges of this Court as reflected from the various decisions of this Court, is one of the reasons for this Court finding it difficult to evolve a consistent jurisprudence in the field of PII. True, in defining the rule of locus standi no 'rigid litmus test' can be applied since the broad contours of PIL are still developing apace seemingly with divergent views on several aspects of the concept of this newly developed law and discovered jurisdiction leading to a rapid trans- formation of judicial activism with a far-reaching change both in the nature and form of the judicial process. …….. 76. So far as the newly invented concept of PIL in Indian legal system is concerned, we can be proud of saying that there is a tremendous development and dynamic progress in the cosmos of PIL in spite of multiple criticism levelled against the various aspects of PIL. The melioration of the philosophy of PIL is demonstrably radiated by the long line of decisions, a few of which we will presently refer to. …….. 85. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India" Chandrachud, C.J. speaking for himself and on behalf of Fazal Ali and Kaushal, JJ. observed that the violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32 and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable having regard to the facts of the case. observed that the violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32 and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable having regard to the facts of the case. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for himself and Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in a separate judgment though concurred with the conclusion of the majority held that if a person belonging to an organisation which has special interest in the subject matter has some concern deeper than that of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although whether the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be considered and pointed out: (SCC p. 587, para 43) ‘Public interest litigation is part of the process of participate justice and 'standing' in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps.’ He further added: (SCC p. 584, para 37) ‘We have no doubt that in a competition between courts and streets as dispenser of justice, the rule of law must win the aggrieved person for the law court and wean him from the lawless street. In simple terms, locus standi must be liberalised to meet the challenges of the times. Ubi jus ibiremedium must be enlarged to embrace all interests of public-minded citizens ororganisations with serious concern for conservation of public resources and the direction and correction of public power so as to promote justice in its triune facets....’ …….. 89. From the above pronouncements, it emerges that this summit Court has widely enlarged the scope of PIL by relaxing and liberalising the rule of standing by treating letters or petitions sent by any person or association complaining violation of any fundamental rights and also entertaining writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by public-spirited and policy-oriented activist persons or journalists or of any organisation rejecting serious challenges made with regard to the maintainability of such petitions and rendered many virtuosic pronouncements and issued manifold directions to the Central and the State Governments, all local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India for the betterment of the public at large in many fields in conformity with constitutional prescriptions of what constitutes the good life in a socially just democracy. The newly invented proposition of law laid down by many learned Judges of this Court in the arena of PIL irrefutably and manifestly establish that our dynamic activism in the field of PIL is by no means less than those of other activist judicial systems in other parts of the world. ……… 109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.” 40] Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Another Vs C.K. Rajan and Others , reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546 , wherein the Apex Court has summarized the principles relating to PIL, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. (See S.P. Gupta V Union of India, People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, BandhuaMukti Morcha v. Union of India and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary.) (ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-à-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail and Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar.) (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. (See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail and Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar.) (iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalanils it was held: (SCC p. 169, para 2) ‘2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances’ (See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal) (iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, S.P. Gupta, People's Union for Democratic Rights, D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) V State of Bihar and BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India]. (V) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (V) When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha.) (vi) Although procedural laws apply to PIL cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depends on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. [See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.)] (vii) The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a public interest litigation. (See RamsharanAutyanuprasi v. Union of India.) (viii) However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (See ShivajiraoNilangekar Patil v. Dr Mahesh Madhav Gosavi.) (ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha³, RakeshChandra Narayan v. State of Bihar and A.P. Pollution Control Board. V. Prof. M.V. Nayudu.) In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. this Court held. (SCCpp. 334-35, para 61) ‘61. It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have someself-imposed restraint on public interest litigants.’ In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary this Court opined: (SCC p. 348, para 109) ‘109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.’ The Court will not ordinarily transgress into a policy. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its jurisdiction while purporting toprotect the rights of the people from being violated. In Narmada BachaoAndolan v. Union of India it was held: (SCC pp. 762-63, paras 229 & 232) ‘229. It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them. 232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction.’ (x) The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the parties, they do not have a power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. (xi) Ordinarily, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule.” 41] Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey (Supra), wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 4 as hereunder:- “4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal case (supra) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, ( AIR 1993 SC 852 ) and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, ( 1994 (6) SCC 620 ).” 42] Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal and others , reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 wherein the Apex Court after discussing the origin of PIL and its evolution in India by the judicial creativity and craftsmanship streamlined the principles of PIL in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL. Paragraph 181 of the aforesaid decision is extracted hereunder for ready reference: - “181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other Courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:- (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.” 43] Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs Shiv Shankar Sharma (Supra), wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 25 has held as hereunder: - “25. The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause.” 44] A careful perusal of the above referred cases indicates that a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can maintain a PIL petition. The locus of the petitioner in a PIL is of utmost importance in as much as the same should not be abused by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives. It further appears that with the passage of time, the Constitutional Court has treated letter written by a member of public as PIL in the event the issue projected in such letter is of public importance. Thus, what is to be examined is whether substantial public interest is involved in the PIL. 45] Apt at this juncture to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the instant PIL petition as regards the locus standi of the petitioners which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “1) That the petitioners herein have no personal interest in the litigation involved and the petition is not guided by self-gain or for the personal gain of any other person/institution/body and that there is no motive other than that of Public interest in filing this Writ petition. 2) The petitioners through the instant Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoking the civil original writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to issue a writ, order or direction of like nature against all the respondents praying inter-alia that Clause 3.1(ii), Clause 3.1(iii), Clause 3.2, Clause 3.3, Clause 3.4, Clause 4.4, Clause 7.2 and Clause 8.1 of the Tri-Partite Memorandum of Settlement (3rd Bodo Accord) (hereinafter referred to as MOS) signed on 27th January, 2020 between the Union Government of India , State Government of Assam and the leaders of ABSU, UBPO and NDFB (four factions) be declared as ultra- vires the Constitution being palpably discriminatory, manifestly arbitrary and illegal being in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution. The petitioners submit that the aforesaid impugned clauses also violate their legal and other constitutional rights. The petitioners further most respectfully submit that the Notifications dated 28/09/2020, 19/01/2021, 04/06/2021 and 10/06/2021 allegedly issued in pursuance to the above MOS are unjust, arbitrary, invidious and discriminatory and therefore deserve to be quashed in as much that the impugned notifications seek to dilute the Constitutional autonomy conferred on the Council which is damaging and detrimental to the interests of the petitioners and all the people residing in the Bodoland Territorial Region. The notifications issued are also malafide and a colourable exercise of executive power and therefore violates the petitioner's fundamental as well as their legal rights. 3) The instant Public Interest Litigation has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners in their personal as well as re-presententive capacity of a majority of the indigenous people living in BTC for enforcement of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,19,21,25 and 29 of the Constitution. 4) That the petitioners herein have no personal interest in the litigation involved and the petition is not guided by self-gain or for the personal gain of any other person/institution/body and that there is no motive other than that of public good and welfare in filing this Public Interest Litigation. The class of persons for whose benefit the present petition is being filed are the peaceful and law-abiding residents of Bodoland who are not all capable of accessing this Hon'ble Court themselves due to financial and geographical constraints. 5) That some of the petitioners herein had earlier filed WP(C) 996 of 2021 under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Hon'ble Supreme Court praying for similar relief. The Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 08/10/2021 was pleased to permit the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition and granted liberty to approach the High Court. Pursuant to such liberty granted this instant petition is being filed in this Hon'ble Court. 6) That the Petitioner No 1 is a Sahitya Academy recognised non- poiliticalorganisation that was formed on the 17th March, 1985 with the aims and objectives to give scopes for literary works to the Bodo writers and create new writers among the Bodo community. The Petitioner No 2 is one of the signatories to the 1st Bodo Accord signed in 1993. He has also been a 4-time elected Member of Parliament. The Petitioner No 3 has been a 3-term cabinet minister in the Assam government and also one of the signatories of the 2 nd Bodo Accord. The Petitioner No 4 is the former Deputy Chief of Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) from 2003 to 2020 and also one of the signatories of the 2 nd Bodo Accord. The petitioners no 5-9 are all public-spirited persons and signatories to the 2 nd Bodo Accord. The Petitioners No 10 to 95 are all vigilant, public spirited and concious citizens of India residing in BTC. The petitioners no 5-9 are all public-spirited persons and signatories to the 2 nd Bodo Accord. The Petitioners No 10 to 95 are all vigilant, public spirited and concious citizens of India residing in BTC. As such, they are entitled to all the rights, privileges and protections guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder.” 46] It appears that the instant PIL is filed by the petitioners in their personal as well as representative capacity of few of the indigenous people living in BTC rd wherein the subject clauses of the 3 Bodo Accord is being assailed on the ground that the same is violative of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It further appears that it is the specific case of the petitioners that the offending clauses and the notifications issued thereunder seeks to take away the rights, absolute autonomy and the rights of self government conferred on the Bodo people and the BTC authority by the Constitution of India itself. Thus, the issue involved in the PIL is certainly of public importance. In fact in the context of PIL, liberalization of locus standi is the rule and refusal is the exception. In the facts of the instant PIL, though few of the petitioners belongs to a particular political organization which has special interest in the subject matter, we cannot ignore that the petitioners together have much concern deeper than that of a busybody, and therefore they cannot be told off at the gates. We therefore cannot ignore the grievances raised in the instant PIL touching the supremacy, absolute autonomy and the right of self governance conferred on the Bodo people and the BTC authorities when is brought to the notice of this Constitutional Court. Hence, the first issue relating to locus standi of the petitioners in maintaining the instant PIL is answered in favour of the petitioners. 47] We shall now examine the matter on merit. In order to adjudicate the 2 issue i.e. whether the rights of the Bodos which are recognized and guaranteed by peace accords as well as the Constitution of India is sought to rd be taken away by the offending clauses of the impugned 3 Bodo Accord, the rd offending clauses of the 3 Accord has to be tested. In order to adjudicate the 2 issue i.e. whether the rights of the Bodos which are recognized and guaranteed by peace accords as well as the Constitution of India is sought to rd be taken away by the offending clauses of the impugned 3 Bodo Accord, the rd offending clauses of the 3 Accord has to be tested. However, before adverting into the merit of the same, it is apt to refer to the relevant provision of the Sixth Schedule. Paragraph 1 of the Sixth Schedule provides that tribal areas in each item of part-I, II and IIA and III of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule shall be an Autonomous District. Paragraph 20 in Part I of the Table specified the Bodoland Territorial Area as a tribal area of the State of Assam. Accordingly, the Bodoland Territorial Area is an Autonomous District. Paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule provides the Constitution of District Council in such Autonomous District which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: - “ 2. Constitution of District Councils and Regional Councils .-[(1) There shall be a District Council for each autonomous district consisting of not more than thirty members, of whom not more than four persons shall be nominated by the Governor and the rest shall be elected on the basis of adult suffrage.] (2) There shall be a separate Regional Council for each area constituted an autonomous region under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule. (3) Each District Council and each Regional Council shall be a body corporate by the name respectively of 'the District Council of (name of district)' and 'the Regional Council of (name of region)', shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued. (4) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the administration of an autonomous district shall, in so far as it is not vested under this Schedule in any Regional Council within such district, be vested in the District Council for such district and the administration of an autonomous region shall be vested in the Regional Council for such region. (4) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the administration of an autonomous district shall, in so far as it is not vested under this Schedule in any Regional Council within such district, be vested in the District Council for such district and the administration of an autonomous region shall be vested in the Regional Council for such region. (5) In an autonomous district with Regional Councils, the District Council shall have only such powers with respect to the areas under the authority of the Regional Council as may be delegated to it by the Regional Council in addition to the powers conferred on it by this Schedule with respect to such areas. (6) The Governor shall make rules for the first constitution of District Councils and Regional Councils in consultation with the existing tribal Councils or other representative tribal organisations within the autonomous districts or regions concerned, and such rules shall provide for- (a) the composition of the District Councils and Regional Councils and the allocation of seats therein; (b) the delimitation of territorial constituencies for the purpose of elections to those Councils; (c) the qualifications for voting at such elections and the preparation of electoral rolls therefor; (d) the qualifications for being elected at such elections as members of such Councils; (e) the term of office of members of '[Regional Councils]; (f) any other matter relating to or connected with elections or nominations to such Councils; (g) the procedure and the conduct of business including the power to act notwithstanding any vacancy] in the District and Regional Councils; (h) the appointment of officers and staff of the District and Regional Councils. [(6A) The elected members of the District Council shall hold office for a term of five years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Council after the general elections to the Council, unless the District Council is sooner dissolved under paragraph 16 and a nominated member shall hold office at the pleasure of the Governor: Provided that the said period of five years may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation or if circumstances exist which, in the opinion of the Governor, render the holding of elections impracticable, be extended by the Governor for a period not exceeding one year at a time and in any case where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation not extending beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate: Provided further that a member elected to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office only for the remainder of the term of office of the member whom he replaces.] (7) The District or the Regional Council may after its first constitution make rules [with the approval of the Governor] with regard to the matters specified in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph and may also make rules [with like approval] regulating- (a) the formation of subordinate local Councils or Boards and their procedure and the conduct of their business; and (b) generally all matters relating to the transaction of business pertaining to the administration of the district or region, as the case may be: Provided that until rules are made by the District or the Regional Council under this sub-paragraph the rules made by the Governor under sub- paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall have effect in respect of elections to, the officers and staff of, and the procedure and the conduct of business in, each such Council.” 48] Paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule provides powers of the District Council to make laws with respect to the subject specified in the said paragraph which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “ 3. Powers of the District Councils and Regional Councils to make laws: -(1) The Regional Council for an autonomous region in respect of all areas within such region and the District Council for an autonomous district in respect of all areas within the district except those which are under the authority of Regional Councils, if any, within the district shall have power to make laws with respect to- (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: Provided that nothing in such laws shall prevent the compulsory acquisition of any land, whether occupied or unoccupied, for public purposes [by the Government of the State concerned] in accordance with the law for the time being in force authorising such acquisition; (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;] (j) social customs. (2) In this paragraph, a 'reserved forest' means any area which is a reserved forest under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, or under any other law for the time being in force in the area in question. (3) All laws made under this paragraph shall be submitted forthwith to the Governor and, until assented to by him, shall have no effect.” 49] Pertinent that by the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2003 paragraph 3B was inserted after paragraph 3A of the Sixth Schedule w.e.f. 7.9.2003, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- "3B. (3) All laws made under this paragraph shall be submitted forthwith to the Governor and, until assented to by him, shall have no effect.” 49] Pertinent that by the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2003 paragraph 3B was inserted after paragraph 3A of the Sixth Schedule w.e.f. 7.9.2003, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- "3B. Additional powers to the Bodoland Territorial Council to make laws.- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 3, the Bodoland Territorial Council within its areas shall have power to make laws with respect to (i) Agriculture, including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases; (ii) Animal husbandry and veterinary, that is to say, preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases, veterinary training and practice, cattle pounds; (iii) Co-operation; (iv) Cultural affairs; (v) Education, that is to say, primary education, higher secondary including vocational training, adult education, college education (general); (vi) Fisheries; (vii) Flood control for protection of village, paddy fields, markets and towns (not of technical nature); (viii) Food and civil supply; (ix) Forests (other than reserved forests); (x) Handloom and textile; (xi) Health and family welfare; (xii) Intoxicating liquors, opium and derivatives, subject to the provisions of entry 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule; (xiii) Irrigation; (xiv) Labour and employment; (xv) Land and Revenue; (xvi) Library services (financed and controlled by the State Government); (xvii) Lotteries (subject to the provisions of entry 40 of List I of the Seventh Schedule), theatres, dramatic performances and cinemas (subject to the provisions of entry 60 of List I of the Seventh Schedule); (xviii) Markets and fairs; (xix) Municipal corporation, improvement trust, district boards and other local authorities; (xx) Museum and archaeology institutions controlled or financed by the State, ancient and historical monuments and records other than those declared by or under any law made by Parliament to be of national importance; (xxi) Panchayat and rural development; (xxii) Planning and development; (xxiii) Printing and stationery; (xxiv) Public health engineering; (xxv) Public works department; (xxvi) Publicity and public relations; (xxvii) Registration of births and deaths; (xxviii) Relief and rehabilitation; (xxix) Sericulture; (xxx) Small, cottage and rural industry subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule; (xxxi) Social welfare; (xxxii) Soil conservation; (xxxiii) Sports and youth welfare; (xxxiv) Statistics; (xxxv) Tourism; (xxxvi) Transport (roads, bridges, ferries and other means of communications not specified in List I of the Seventh Schedule, municipal tramways, ropeways, inland waterways and traffic thereon subject to the provision of List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule with regard to such waterways, vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles); (xxxvii) Tribal research institute controlled and financed by the State Government; (xxxviii) ferries and other means of communications not specified in List I of the Seventh Schedule, municipal tramways, ropeways, inland waterways and traffic thereon subject to the provision of List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule with regard to such waterways, vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles); (xxxvii) Tribal research institute controlled and financed by the State Government; (xxxviii) Urban development-town and country planning; (xxxix) Weights and measures subject to the provisions of entry 50 of List I of the Seventh Schedule; and (xl) Welfare of plain tribes and backward classes: Provided that nothing in such laws shall- (a) extinguish or modify the existing rights and privileges of any citizen in respect of his land at the date of commencement of this Act; and (b) disallow any citizen from acquiring land either by way of inheritance, allotment, settlement or by any other way of transfer if such citizen is otherwise eligible for such acquisition of land within the Bodoland Territorial Areas District. (2) All laws made under paragraph 3 or under this paragraph shall in so far as they relate to matters specified in List III of the Seventh Schedule, be submitted forthwith to the Governor who shall reserve the same for the consideration of the President. (3) When a law is reserved for the consideration of the President, the President shall declare either that he assents to the said law or that he withholds assent therefrom: Provided that the President may direct the Governor to return the law to the Bodoland Territorial Council, together with the message requesting that the said Council will reconsider the law or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when the law is so returned, the said Council shall consider the law accordingly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such message and, if the law is again passed by the said Council with or without amendments it shall be presented again to the President for his consideration." 50] Perusal of the aforesaid paragraph 3 it appears that the District Councils have inherent power to make laws with respect to the subjects specified thereunder in order to give the District Council complete autonomy and supremacy. It further appears that by the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2003, paragraph 3B was inserted in the Sixth Schedule whereby the BTC was given additional powers in respect to 39 additional subjects to make laws. Therefore, in respect of the subjects enumerated in paragraph 3 and 3B of the Sixth Schedule it is the District Council alone who has the powers to make laws thereof. 51] This takes us now to the offending clauses of the 3 Bodo Accord, which is under challenge in this instant PIL. The offending clauses are extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “3. Alteration of Area of BTAD 3.1 A commission will be appointed under Paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution soon after signing of the MOS to examine and recommend on the following:- i. Inclusion of villages contiguous to BTAD and having majority tribal population, as demanded by Bodo organisations. ii. Exclusion of villages currently under BTAD which are contiguous to non- Sixth Schedule areas and have majority non tribal population. iii. Increase in constituencies of BTC upto the maximum of 60 seats after alteration in the area, without adversely affecting the existing percentage of reservation for tribals. 3.2 The Commission will include representatives of the State Government as well as other stakeholders including ABSU and BTC as its members. It will submit its recommendation within six months from the date of notification. 3.3 The existing Bodoland Territorial Areas District (BTAD) shall be renamed as Bodoland Territorial Region comprising area covered under BTAD. 3.4 Government of Assam may consider reorganizing the districts consequent to alteration of area of BTAD on administrative considerations.” …….. 4.4 Executive functions of BTC shall be exercised through its Chief Executive Officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to Government of Assam. Senior most officers of various Departments of BTC shall not be below the rank of Addl.Secretary to Government of Assam. …….. 7.2 Government of Assam will take effective measures to protect khas land, grazing land and water bodies from illegal encroachment. …….. Senior most officers of various Departments of BTC shall not be below the rank of Addl.Secretary to Government of Assam. …….. 7.2 Government of Assam will take effective measures to protect khas land, grazing land and water bodies from illegal encroachment. …….. 8.1 Government of Assam will create a separate Department to deal with matters relating to Councils under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution including BTC.” 52] It appears that under clause 3.1 of the 3 Bodo Accord, it is decided to appoint a Commission to undertake the act of alteration of the areas of BTAD by including villages contiguous to BTAD and having majority tribal population and by excluding villages currently under BTAD which are contiguous to non- sixth schedule area having majority non tribal population. The manner in which such recommendation shall be made by the Commission and also the manner in which the Government of Assam shall consider reorganizing the districts consequent to such alteration is also prescribed therein. A glance of the aforesaid rules, it is absolutely clear that setting up of a commission under clause 3.1 to undertake the exercise of alteration of the areas of the BTAD by no stretch of imagination can be said to take away the rights, absolute autonomy, and the rights of self government of the Bodo people. In fact, it appears that due to the demand made by the Bodo organizations, the clause has been inserted. It further appears that this clause will help to project the benefits to the rightful beneficiaries as envisaged by the Sixth Schedule of the rd Constitution of India, thus making the 3 Bodo Accord more inclusive of those who were earlier unrepresented. It further appears that areas dominated by Bodo people in the other districts of Assam may also be brought under the BTAD. Hence, we are of the clear view that setting up of such commission cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 53] As regards clause 3.1(iii) of the 3 Bodo Accord it appears that the petitioners have not given any explanation as how the said clause is unconstitutional. In fact, under this clause, it is provided that the Commission shall examine and recommend increase in constituencies of BTC upto the maximum of 60 seats after alteration of the area without adversely affecting the existing percentage of reservation for tribals. In fact, under this clause, it is provided that the Commission shall examine and recommend increase in constituencies of BTC upto the maximum of 60 seats after alteration of the area without adversely affecting the existing percentage of reservation for tribals. 54] As regards clause 3.2 of the 3 Bodo Accord which provides that the commission will include representatives of the State Government as well as other stake holders including ABSU and BTC, the same also cannot be said to be violative of any public right. Further the commission is only a recommendatory body and the reports of the commission will have to be first recommended by the Governor and thereafter placed before the Assembly. 55] As regards the challenge in respect of clause 3.3 of the 3 Bodo Accord which provides renaming of the existing BTAD as BTR is also beyond the understanding of this Court as how the same is unconstitutional. We are of the unhesitant view that renaming of BTAD cannot be said to be prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the Bodo inhabitants. 56] As regards clause 3.4 of the 3 Bodo Accord which provides the Government of Assam to re-organize the district consequent to alteration of area of BTAD, the same is yet to be implemented in as much as it is only in the event an area is changed on the basis of the Commission’s report, this clause may be resorted to. Be that as it may, the alteration of the BTAD areas if is undertaken in terms of the Commission’s report, the same is for the greater interest of the Bodo inhabitants and even before the Commission submits its report or is accepted and implemented, it is not understood as to how the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved of such setting up of a commission for carrying out the exercise of alteration. 57] As regards clause 4.4 of the 3 Bodo Accord which provides that the executive function of BTC shall be exercised through its Chief Executive Officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, it is inconceivable as how the same can be said to tinker the rights of the Bodo people. 57] As regards clause 4.4 of the 3 Bodo Accord which provides that the executive function of BTC shall be exercised through its Chief Executive Officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, it is inconceivable as how the same can be said to tinker the rights of the Bodo people. In fact, this clause envisages a pyramidical structure, inasmuch as, it provides for a Chief Executive Officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam with an aim to avoid a situation of conflict or tussle over power between the Chief Executive Officer and the District Commissioner. The Chief Executive Officer, who will now be an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, will be able to obtain reports from the District Commissioners in an effective manner, ensure proper discipline, combat corruption and have more control over them. 58] As regards clause 7.2 of the 3 Bodo Accord which provides that the Govt. of Assam will take effective measures to protect Khas land, grazing land and water bodies for illegal encroachment by no stretch of imagination can be said to be interfering or taking away the right of the Bodo people. In fact, the same appears to be in advancement of the protection of the land and water bodies of the Bodo people. 59] As regards clause 8.1 of the 3 Bodo Accord which provides that the Government of Assam will create a separate department to deal with matters relating to Council under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India including the BTC is in the interest of the Sixth Schedule areas and hence, the same cannot be said to be unconstitutional. In fact the purpose of creating a separate department to deal with matters relating to Council is to bring in development in the region in a faster and exclusive manner. In fact, a department dedicated fully to the BTC will undoubtedly help to focus on the region more and bring in development faster. 60] Most pertinently the 3 Bodo Accord is the outcome of extensive consultation between the State and Central Government with various stake holders over several years in order to bring peace & maintain harmony in the rd Bodoland. 60] Most pertinently the 3 Bodo Accord is the outcome of extensive consultation between the State and Central Government with various stake holders over several years in order to bring peace & maintain harmony in the rd Bodoland. The 3 Bodo Accord being an initiative by the Government both Central and State with the stakeholders concerned, the Constitutional Courts should not become an approval authority. It is apparent that such peace accord has been entered after due deliberation and consideration. It is the larger public interest in the mind of a responsible government and not merely of a small section of the society. It is settled law that if a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not malafide it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the Executive. 61] Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan V. Union Of India and others , reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664 , wherein the Apex Court in the majority decision observed as hereunder:- “232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction. 233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power the court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the court will not interfere. The courts must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words the court itself is not above the law. 234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision” 62] In the instant case, the offending clauses of the 3 Bodo Accord are not unconstitutional and hence, it is outside the domain of this Court to go into the merits of such clauses. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid impugned offending clauses do not take away the rights, absolute autonomy, and rights of self government conferred on the Bodo people and the BTC authorities. Hence, the challenge to the offending clauses rd nd of the 3 Bodo Accord fails. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid impugned offending clauses do not take away the rights, absolute autonomy, and rights of self government conferred on the Bodo people and the BTC authorities. Hence, the challenge to the offending clauses rd nd of the 3 Bodo Accord fails. The 2 issue is according answered in favour of rd the respondents by upholding the offending clauses of the 3 Bodo Accord. 63] Now turning to the 3 issue i.e. the legality and validity of the notifications rd issued pursuant to the offending clauses of the 3 Bodo Accord, though this Court has already affirmed the validity of the aforesaid clauses, however, the notifications issued thereunder being a subject matter of challenge in this instant PIL, we shall examine the justifiability of the said notifications. 64] Apt to refer to the Notification No.HMA-19/14/2020-Political(A)/Pt.1/25 dated 28.09.2020 which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “ ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur, the 28th September, 2020. No. HMA-19/14/2020-Political(A)/Pt.1/25 :: In pursuance of Clause 3.1 of the Memorandum of Settlement signed on 27/01/2020 by the Government of India, Government of Assam, All Bodo Students' Union and National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), the Governor of Assam is pleased to constitute a Commission under paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India with the following members for alteration of the area of BTAD. 1. Shri P.P. Verma, IAS (Retd.) - Chairman 2. Administrator, BTC - Member 3. Shri Jayanta Basumatary, Vice President - Member All Bodo Students' Union 4. Shri Dalim Bayan, Convenor, - Member Red Cross, Udalguri 5. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department - Secretary The Commission will submit its recommendation within six months from the date of this notification. This will come into effect from date of issue of the notification. Sd/- (G.D. Tripathi, IAS) Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department” 65] By way of the said notification dated 28.09.2020, a Commission is constituted for furnishing recommendations for alteration of the area under the BTAD. This will come into effect from date of issue of the notification. Sd/- (G.D. Tripathi, IAS) Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department” 65] By way of the said notification dated 28.09.2020, a Commission is constituted for furnishing recommendations for alteration of the area under the BTAD. Perusal of the aforesaid notification, it appears that the duty of the said Commission is of fact finding and therefore the same cannot be said to be violative of the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of India in as much as the recommendations of the said Commission will be advisory in nature, which may or may not be accepted in the Parliamentary test. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Shri Dalim Bayan, Convenor, Red Cross, Udalguri, being included as one of the members in the said Commission is arbitrary, the same is not well founded as under clause 3.2 of the 3rd Bodo Accord, other stake holders besides representatives of the State Government, ABSU and BTC could be included. Pertinent that paragraph 14 of the Sixth schedule provides for appointment of Commission to enquire into and report on the administration of autonomous districts. It is the prerogative of the Government to constitute such commission by including various stakeholders. Thus, inclusion of Shri Dalim Bayan, Convenor, Red Cross, Udalguri as a member cannot be said to be arbitrary. Hence, the said notification dated 28.09.2020 is not illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 66] This takes us to the notification dated 19.01.2021, whereby the services of the Deputy Commissioners in the BTAD were partially placed with the BTC in respect of all developmental activities in their respective districts with regard to the responsibilities assigned to them by BTC authority, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “ ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATION Dated, 19th January, 2021. NO.AAP 136/2014/116 In pursuance of General Administrative Department's letter No GAG(B) 107/2020/24 Dated 05.08.2020, relating to implementation of Memorandum of Settlement signed on 27/01/2020 by Govt. of India, Govt. of Assam and Bodo groups and in the interest of public service, the services of Deputy Commissioners in BTAD are partially placed with Bodoland Territorial Council, in respect of all developmental activities in their districts with regard to the responsibilities assigned to them by BTC authority. of India, Govt. of Assam and Bodo groups and in the interest of public service, the services of Deputy Commissioners in BTAD are partially placed with Bodoland Territorial Council, in respect of all developmental activities in their districts with regard to the responsibilities assigned to them by BTC authority. The Principal Secretary of BTC will accordingly forward a report annually to Personnel Department regarding performance of Deputy Commissioners in BTAD, for such developmental activities. Sd/-Niraj Verma, IAS Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personnel (A) Department” 67] Apparent that the said notification was issued in pursuance of clause 4.6 of the MoS and as per the affidavit in opposition filed by the State of Assam it appears that the same is with the approval of the competent authority. As such, the said notification also cannot be faulted with. 68] Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued Order No BTC/IBA-679/2020/46 dated 04.06.2021 vide which the Deputy Commissioners of BTR, viz. Deputy Commissioners of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri were entrusted with overall monitoring and supervision of schemes pertaining to 15 subjects entrusted with the BTC, which is also extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “No.BTC/IBA-679/2020/46 Dated Kokrajhar the June 4, 2021. ORDER In pursuance of the transferred subjects vested with the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) vide 'The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India (Amendment) Act, 2003, (No.44 of 2003), dtd.7th September, 2003' and the Notification No.AAP.136/2014/116, dtd.19 th January 2021 issued by the Personnel Department of Government of Assam relating to implementation of Memorandum of Settlement signed on 27 January, 2020 between Govt. of India, Govt. of Assam and Bodo Groups, the Deputy Commissioners of Bodoland Territorial Region, viz. Deputy Commissioners of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri are hereby entrusted with overall monitoring and supervision of schemes pertaining to following subjects entrusted with the BTC : 01.Agriculture, including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases 02. Sericulture 03. Education, that is to say, primary education, higher secondary including vocational training, adult education, college education (general) 04. Fisheries 05. Panchayat & Rural Development 06. Health & Family Welfare 07. Public Health Engineering 08. Social Welfare 09.Flood Control for protection of village, paddy fields, markets and towns (not of technical nature) 10. Weight & Measures subject to the provisions of Entry 50 of List I of the Seventh Schedule 11. Urban Development - Town & Country Planning 12. Fisheries 05. Panchayat & Rural Development 06. Health & Family Welfare 07. Public Health Engineering 08. Social Welfare 09.Flood Control for protection of village, paddy fields, markets and towns (not of technical nature) 10. Weight & Measures subject to the provisions of Entry 50 of List I of the Seventh Schedule 11. Urban Development - Town & Country Planning 12. Land & Revenue 13. Food and Civil Supply 14. Intoxicating liquors, opium and derivatives, subject to the provisions of Entry 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule 15. Relief and Rehabilitation 16. Any other responsibilities as may be entrusted by BTC authority from time to time. The Deputy Commissioners will be responsible for oversight and supervision for district and sub-divisional level officials regarding implementation of various schemes by Govt. of India, Govt. of Assam and BTC authority for above mentioned subjects. Further, they will prepare an Annual Action Plan and get it approved by Principal Secretary, BTC with respect to the subjects entrusted above for the purpose of their performance appraisal to be forwarded annually to the Personnel Department, Govt. of Assam. For effective control, Deputy Commissioners will ensure presence of district level functionaries at their respective. HQS. They are entrusted with the authority to grant Casual Leave and HQ leave permission only for the district level officers. For sub-division level officials, the authority is entrusted with respective SDO (Civil). A detail guideline will follow. This order will come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- Shantanu P.Gotmare,IAS Principal Secretary Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar” 69] It appears that the respondent No.4 by the aforesaid order date 04.06.2021 entrusted the Deputy Commissioner of BTR with overall monitoring and supervision of schemes pertaining to the 15 subjects entrusted with the BTC mentioned in the order. It appears that the same has been done for effective control and to ensure that the schemes are properly implemented. Pertinent that the stand of the State Government in this regard is that the said rd notification was issued in pursuance of clause 4.6 of the 3 Bodo Accord with the approval of the competent Authority. Be that as it may, apparent that the said notification is in the larger interest of public. Pertinent that the stand of the State Government in this regard is that the said rd notification was issued in pursuance of clause 4.6 of the 3 Bodo Accord with the approval of the competent Authority. Be that as it may, apparent that the said notification is in the larger interest of public. That apart, by the aforesaid notification the Deputy Commissioner of BTR is not being entrusted to make laws in respect of the said 15 entrusted subjects, and hence the said notification is also not arbitrary and unjust. 70] Apt now to refer to the notification dated 10.06.2021 which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “ ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur, the 10th June, 2021. No. AR 38/2020/53: In the interest of public service, the Governor of Assam is pleased to order the creation of a new Administrative Department, namely the "Welfare of Bodoland Department" with immediate effect. (A) Broad Mandate 1. The Department will be the nodal Department for formulation and implementation of policies and programmes for welfare and all-round development of the people inhabiting in the Bodoland area under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution under sixth schedule Council in the State. 2. The Department will also be responsible for implementation of Tribal Sub- Plan of the State Annual Plan, Central and State Government funded programmes in the Bodoland area under the Sixth Schedule. 3. The Department will look after the proper implementation of the Acts related with the Bodoland areas under the Sixth Schedule in the State. 4. To enable and strengthen the Bodoland Territorial Región (BTR) to discharge their functions efficiently under Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India through policy support and interface with the Government of Assam and its departments. 5. To ensure provision of adequate funds to the BTR under various schemes/programmes for the holistic development of the BTR areas. 6. To run, control and monitor the schemes/programmes implemented in the BTR. 7. To Identify the problems of the economic backwardness of the Bodoland Territorial Council people and look after the constitutional rights of the Council people for the improvement of their Social, educational and economic conditions. 8. To formulate schemes for the rehabilitation and assistance to the Indigenous people living outside the BTR areas. 9. To promote employment opportunities among the BTR people. 10. 8. To formulate schemes for the rehabilitation and assistance to the Indigenous people living outside the BTR areas. 9. To promote employment opportunities among the BTR people. 10. To take up such other activities as may be entrusted by the State Government from time to time. (B) Staffing Pattern : The staffing pattern for the Welfare of Bodoland Department is as below: 1) Additional Chief Secretary = 1 (one). 2) Principal Secretary/Commissioner and Secretary/Secretary = 1 (one), 3) Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary = 1 (one). 4) Deputy Secretary = 2 (two). 5) Under Secretary = 1 (one). 6) Research Officer/Sr. Research Officer = 1 (one) 7) Senior Stenographer = 2 (two). 8) Superintendent = 1 (one). 9) Senior Administrative Assistant = 2 (two). 10) Junior Administrative Assistant = 2 (two). 11) Grade IV = 4 (four). The posts indicated above from sl. 2 to sl. 11 shall be filled up by creation of additional posts or by redeployment/suppressing the equivalent number of existing sanctioned posts in other departments by the respective cadre controlling departments. (C) Detailed Mandate of the Department: Upon its creation, the objectives of the Department would be suitably incorporated in The Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968.The Department will conduct a well guided research and then work out the areas of Bodoland Territorial Administration- where the State can be stakeholders. Depending on the findings, the mandate of the Department will be finalized and notified in due course. By order and on behalf of Governor of Assam Sd/- (Archana Varma, IAS) Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam Administrative Reforms and Training Department” 71] It appears that the respondent No. 2 issued notification dated 10.06.2021 creating a new Administrative Department namely the "Welfare of Bodoland Department" with immediate effect. As per this notification, the broad mandate of this new Department inter-alia was that the Department will be the Nodal Department for formulation and implementation of policies and programmes for welfare and all-round development of the people inhabiting in the Bodoland area under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India under Sixth Schedule Council in the State. Therefore, there appears no legal infirmity for creation of a new administrative department. In fact, with such creation of a new administrative department it would streamline the implementation of policies and programmes which are for welfare and better development of the Bodo people. Hence, the notification dated 10.06.2021 is also not arbitrary. Therefore, there appears no legal infirmity for creation of a new administrative department. In fact, with such creation of a new administrative department it would streamline the implementation of policies and programmes which are for welfare and better development of the Bodo people. Hence, the notification dated 10.06.2021 is also not arbitrary. As rd such, the 3 issue as regards whether the consequential notifications/orders dated 28.09.2020, 19.01.2024, 04.06.2021 and 10.06.2021 are illegal and arbitrary, the said issue is also answered in favour of the respondents by affirming the validity of the said notifications/orders. 72] In view of the above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit or substance whatsoever in the instant PIL and accordingly, the PIL stands dismissed. No order as to costs.