SHILLONG: The Movement for Indigenous People’s Rights and Livelihood-Meghalaya (MIPRL) has questioned the State Government over the passing of the Prevention of Disqualification (Members of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya) Amendment Bill, 2015 which bars MLAs from holding dual posts.
MIPRL spokesperson, Erwin K Sutnga claimed that the Indian Constitution does not bar an MLA from holding the post of an MDC.
“Article 101 bars a person from being a member of both the Houses of Parliament or a Member of Parliament and a Member of State legislature at the same time,” Sutnga said adding that barring an MLA from holding the post of an MDC will be legalized only if an amendment to the Sixth Schedule makes it a law.
He also said that the Speaker of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly has no jurisdiction over issues relating to disqualification on matters of “office of profit”.
“The Speaker’s jurisdiction under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India will hold good only after the opinion rendered by the Election commission is accepted by the Governor of Meghalaya that it is an office of profit and the Governor forwards the same to the Speaker,” Sutnga said.
Syiem reiterated that if the question of disqualification of MLAs arises on office of profit the provision of the Constitution of India under Article 192 states that the matter should be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final. But before giving any decision, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.
“The action of the State Government based on the decision of the Cabinet to amend the Prevention of Disqualification (Members of the Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya) Act, 1972 when viewed against the backdrop of the Constitutional provisions, appears to be a partisan (political move) and ultra vires to the Constitution,” he said adding that what is more alarming is the blatant use of the authority of law to achieve a political agenda.
“The whole drama is unnecessary and has made a mockery of democracy and the Constitution of India,” he said.
Sutnga alleged that there is a tussle between the Government and KHADC which has resulted in a constitutional crisis created by the Government compelling seven MLAs to resign from the post of MDCs.
“Of late the issues have become personal where the Chief Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have seen it fit to target P.N Syiem, CEM of the KHADC through amendment of the Meghalaya (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1972,” Syiem said.
According to Syiem, in the original Act of 1972 the presence of “entry no 9” allowed the MLAs to hold the office of Member of District Council, Chairman, CEM and EMs of the District Councils.
Syiem also pointed out that the issue of office of profit arises when Government appoints persons to hold posts, but the case of MDCs is different as they are not appointed by the Government but elected by the people.
