SHILLONG: HS Shylla said on Friday there was communication gap in the state government and Chief Minister Conrad Sangma was “probably not briefed by bureaucrats on the application of Inner Line Permit (ILP) in scheduled areas”.
Shylla told reporters after the KHADC special session that the district council would inform the chief minister about ILP.
Sangma had earlier said ILP does not fall within the purview of the KHADC.
To this, Shylla said, “On one hand, the CM was right in one sense (as the subject of ILP) is not in the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. We will argue on that.”
He went on to elaborate that it is an additional power which the District Council derived from the Regulation of 1952.
“Many have overlooked this and this is not in the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) but in United-Khasi and Jaintia Hills, that is it will apply only in Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (JHADC) and KHADC,” he added.
There are many other laws other than the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, which the then governor Jairamdas Doulatram in 1952 came up with the regulation and the President of India Rajendra Prasad gave his assent to the regulation.
“The statement of the chief minister that it should go back to the central government does not arise,” Shylla said, adding that the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, which was older than the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, was similarly adapted to be applied to the areas of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills.
He added that the district council was also not aware of its extra power beyond the Sixth Schedule with regard to the application of laws included in the Schedule of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills through the Regulation, 1952.
He referred to the Brhyien Kurkalang case in which she challenged the application of laws and Regulation 1952.
She was arrested under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910, which is also one of the central laws included in the Schedule through the Regulation of 1952.
Shylla said the Supreme Court clarified that the regulation continues to operate unless it is repealed.
“There was no such repeal of the laws included in the Regulation 1952. The CM was not briefed about the differences between the KHADC and the GHADC,” he added.
He reiterated that it was the state government which sent the KHADC a letter after routing through the Law department, Political Department and the District Council Affairs (DCA) and the under secretary of DCA wrote to the district council.
“There was a direction from the state government that the district council needs to take necessary action. There must be some communication gap between the officers of the state government and the CM,” he added.
