SHILLONG: Governor Ganga Prasad has said he would resort to Article 192 of the Constitution to disqualify the 17 MLAs who resigned as parliamentary secretaries following a High Court judgment.
The petitioner of the PIL on parliamentary secretaries, Madal Sumer, met the governor on Monday to seek the disqualification of the legislators.
In his petition, Sumer had urged the governor, the highest constitutional authority of the state, to exercise his power under Article 192 of the Constitution and to take a decision on the issue of disqualification.
The governor said the matter would have to be taken up at the level of the Speaker as well as the Election Commission of India.
According to Article 192 of the Constitution, if any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Article 191, the question will be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final.
“Before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion”, says the Article.
The High Court of Meghalaya, while striking down the Meghalaya Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2005, on November 9 had left the question of disqualification of the 17 parliamentary secretaries as MLAs ‘open’ for determination by the governor, if raised in accordance with law.
Sumer was accompanied by Augustine Shanpru, president of the Meghalaya Truck Owners and Operators Association.
Speaking to reporters outside the entrance of Raj Bhavan late in the evening, Shanpru said, “On the part of the Governor, he made it clear that he will follow the Article 192 of the Constitution.”
According to Shanpru, he observed that the state government has allotted different appointments to MLAs whereas it does not have the responsibility to look after the welfare of youth even as unemployment is on the rise.
Sumer had stated in his petition that the legislators were holding the “office of profit”.
He referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jaya Bachchan vs Union of India case.
The court had held that office of profit could be defined as something that yields profit or pecuniary gain and a post under central or state government to which some pay, salary, emolument, remuneration or non-compensatory allowances are attached.
“The said MLAs are therefore liable to be disqualified for holding office of profit under Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution,” Sumer said.
Hollow districts
The petitioner criticised the state government on the creation of new districts, terming them as “hollow” as there are no government schools, colleges, hospitals.
According to him, the government does not have money to build any of the public necessities but has “lots of money” to spend on posts like parliamentary secretaries.
