SHILLONG: KHADC chief executive member HS Shylla has reiterated that the district council has the power to implement inner line permit in scheduled areas and threatened to file contempt case against anyone questioning its jurisdiction.
The KHADC, during a special session last month, had approved the KHAD (The Inner Line) Regulation, 2018, which was adapted from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 and “is legislated as per the law”.
Addressing the media on Monday, Shylla said the public should not be misled on KHADC’s authority to legislate laws. “From now onwards, if anyone goes ahead and say that the KHADC cannot make such legislation, we will file a contempt of court in the Supreme Court,” he added as he referred to a 1952 apex court order.
Chief Minister Conrad Sangma had earlier questioned the jurisdiction of KHADC on matters related to ILP. He also had reservations about ILP as the government is setting up entry and exit points.
But Shylla, who is an NPP leader, has been harping on the district council’s power and on Monday, referred to the Brhyien Kurkalang case in which she challenged the application of laws and Regulation 1952.
“The apex court had then said, ‘Like every other piece of legislation, the regulation continues to operate and remains effective until it is either annulled or repealed under some legislative power’,” Shylla said and repeated that the KHADC has the right to legislate and implement the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, just as it implements the India Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
There are other laws beside the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, included in the Schedule of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Application of Laws) Regulation, 1952.
With the state government not forthcoming with implementing ILP in scheduled areas, he expressed surprise at the MDA government’s approach.
Protection from influx
Referring to the state government’s call for discussion on the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act, 2016, on November 15 with pressure groups, Shylla said, “The state of Meghalaya needs a law for protection from inter-state influx (and it) is crucial at the moment. Influx of foreigners is not difficult to tackle.”
Criticising former chief minister Mukul Sangma for misleading the public, he pointed out the then Congress government based the act on Article 19 (1) (d) of the Indian Constitution and not on Article 19 (5).
He indicated that Article 19 (5) curtails Article 19 (1) (d) as it imposes reasonable restrictions by the state for the protection of the interest of any scheduled tribe.
Further, Shylla said Section 17 (1) (d) and (3) of the MRSS Act is “to facilitate the entry of tourists, or visitors to the State without causing any inconvenience; (3) The Facilitation Centre shall ensure that no Indian shall be put to inconvenience or restraint from his or her rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India”.
He took exception to the word “facilitate” and argued that MRSS should not be implemented as it will pose a danger to the minority community in the state.
Appealing to NGOs to read Section 17 of the MRSS Act and place it for discussion with the government, he said, “MRSS is the biggest deception presented to the people of Meghalaya. The people of the state need ILP, people need prevention centre and not facilitation centre.”
“The main aim of ILP is to prohibit other national residents from entering the scheduled areas. The provisions in MRSS are in conflict with the provisions of ILP,” he said.
Shylla maintained that a strong legislation has to be in place to ensure that tourists and visitors could not enter the state without permit wherein a fixed time will be allotted to visitors to stay in the state.
