By Bindo M Lanong
The current four high profile issues in Meghalaya which have also attracted global attention, right from the level of the State Chief Minister, Dr. Mukul Sangma, whose ignominious S.T. status has been raised in public domain, down to the erstwhile East Pakistani migrant – refugees who have been (temporarily) settled at Amjong area, now Ri-Bhoi District since 1957-58, plus the rat-hole mining ban by the NGT and the ancient black hole of Calcutta-like custodial death in Tura, will go down in the annals of the State history and record.
The following brief analysis would throw more light on the above issues and provide more scope for retrospection, debate and positive interaction.
S.T. case: While disposing of one S.T. case, relating to the Civil Appeal of Anjan Kumar Vrs Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 6445 of 2000 (S.c. 2006 A10L 83) the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Anjan Kumar, who had S.T. Certificate, his mother being a tribal of Madhya Pradesh, married to a non-tribal husband, on the ground that, “S.T. and S.C. certificate is not a bounty to be distributed …. To sustain the claim, one must show that he suffered disabilities-socially, economically and educationally, cumulatively….Any concerned authority issuing such certificate in a routine a manner would be committing dereliction of Constitutional duty.”
The gist of the case was that Anjan Kumar after being denied appointment in the Indian Information Service, following his selection in 1993, finally filed the above Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court, after having lost his battles before the CAT and State High Court.
As regards the S.T. status of Dr. Mukul and his two other siblings, the All NE Indigenous Garo Law Promoters Association and Tennydard Marak unearthed the veracity of claim of being Scheduled Tribe by the above persons and the grant of S.T. Certificate to them some years ago, reportedly on the ground that Mukul’s mother was a non-tribal and father a tribal of Marak clan and how Mukul could obtain the Sangma surname.
Interestingly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted by Meghalaya Government to examine the Chief Minister’s S.T. case has been stayed by the Supreme Court, and the hearing of this case is fixed on July 21, 2014, summoning the litigant parties and also the GoI National Commission for S.T./S.C. and the Election Commission of India.
Amjong Migrant Refugee Case : Unofficial records confirm that during 1957-58, the B.P. Chaliha government in Assam had to temporary rehabilitate a group of East Pakistani refugees at Amjong, to be precise at Amdubighat, now Ri-Bhoi district with the consent of the then Syiem of Khyrim Syiemship, Olim Sing Syiem. The then census assistant of Assam Malaria Department, who is still alive recalled that about 45 families were registered and remained in the area till today, with increasing families though.
The fate of these refugees is similar to that of the Chakma refugees in Arunachal Pradesh, who have been struggling for several years for a permanent settlement of their uncertain status. Over the years however, some relief came in their favour, in the form of provision of voting right to the children born in Arunachal and other educational concessions.
In the footstep of the Chakmas, the Meghalaya High Court recently passed an order in the spirit of the Illegal Migrants (Determination By Tribunals) Act 1983, that those illegal migrants who have entered Meghalaya prior to March 24, 1971, should be considered as Indian citizens and to recognize their voting right. Whereas, the matter of determination of Illegal Migrants has been vested with the Tribunals, to be constituted by the Central government under the same Act, the question to acquire Indian citizenship is stipulated under the Citizenship Act 1955 and the rules made there-under, called the Citizenship Rules 1956.
The above laws are explicit and unambiguous, that it is the sole jurisdiction of the Central government to determine the citizenship status of any person and to issue necessary orders for acquisition or deprivation of the citizenship application. Normally, Judiciary comes into play, only when aggrieved parties approach the Court for interpretation and order.
In AIR 1996, SC 1234, the Supreme Court while delivering its order on the case of the East Pakistanis Chakmas in Arunachal, did not assume to itself anything at all on the status of the said Chakmas, but a direction to the collector to forward all applications for citizenship to the Central Government for its consideration in accordance with the law (Part II, clause 8 of the Citizenship Rules 1956). Other orders passed relate to protection of life and property governed by the Rules of Law.
It will be of academic interest to watch if there be an appeal against the impugned order of the High Court of Meghalaya as to the maintainability of the petition and as to whether or not, the order be deemed as an order per – in curiam.
Rat Hole Mining ban : The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on April 17, 2014 on an application by The All Dimasa Students Union (ADSU) and the Dima Hasao from Assam, restrained extraction and transshipment of coal from Meghalaya, thus inviting strong reaction from all the mining bodies of Meghalaya, backed by concerned NGOs and the public who are associated with mining activities and the State Government, which is losing around Rs. 400 crore per annum as revenue.
Preservation and protection of environment is today, the uppermost concern of every citizen globally. Had there been mechanized coal mining in Meghalaya, where the traditional rat hole mining had taken place since donkey’s years, when the Britishers ruled this part of the world, Meghalaya would have undergone sea-changes in terms of topography. It is the small rat-hole approach, with slow and limited extraction of coal like the typical rat style, beneath the surface, that the hills of Meghalaya are still standing with green cover. The mini mines of Meghalaya cannot be compared with those in Jharkhand, Orissa or Bengal. Mechanized mining, of the Lafarge Company technique at Limestone-rich Nongtrai area, will be disastrous for the state.
As a matter of fact, Meghalaya is going in the right direction on mining activities, with the exhaustive Mining Policy being introduced. The Policy covers the need to enhance the modern scientific approach, including strategic mechanized mining, without doing away of course, with the traditional rat-hole mining system of the tribal people. The Policy also comprises pollution and health aspects and safety provisions for miners and mines closure plan among others.
It may not be out of place to recall the attempt made by the Government of Assam in 1954, notifying to take over the Coal mines of Sohra by the then government. The Local people agitated against the arbitrary order, and it was the statesmanship of the then Chief Minister, B P Chaliha, who, understanding the sentiments of the people and their exclusive rights over their land and property, that led to the government revoking the said notification. The NGT ban has left thousands of people stranded and jobless. How to balance, between the ADSU demand and the plight of the many in Meghalaya, will lie on the wisdom and justification of the parties concerned during the hearings on the vexed issue.
Black Hole-like Custodial death : The mysterious death of two Garo youths in a span of one week in Garo Hills, (Balsan. S. Marak and Witson M. Sangma) exposes the administration’s lackadaisical attitude for human rights and a complete failure of law and order. One fails to comprehend, as to how in a modern generation and in a country governed by the ‘Rule of Law, an ancient’ Black-hole of Calcutta-like custodial death (of many British Soldiers who were dumped in a small-dark punishment cell died of suffocation and other physical torture 1756) could occur.
Supreme Court in the most leading judgment in D K Basu Vrs State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC observed that custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by rule of law…the precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody…No civilized nation can permit this to happen.”
In another Custodial Death case of Geeta Sangma VRS State of Nagaland and others Civil Rule No. 101 (K) 1991, the Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) in its order in 1993, imposed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, payable within 3 months time, to the petitioner, (wife of Late Francis Sangma), by the Government of Nagaland or with a discretion to realize the amount from the guilty police personnel, who were indicted by the court for the custodial death of Francis Sangma, in the custody of Dimapur Police in 1989. The demand of the relatives of the above deceased youths in Garo Hills and by the NGOs and others to institute a judicial inquiry is aptly justified, especially when reports of police and officers nexus to cover up the crime has been exposed