SHILLONG: Independent MDC from Nongshken, Grace Mary Kharpuri, said she will not rejoin the Latiplang Kharkongor-led United Democratic Front (UDF) coalition in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC).
Kharpuri was named as Deputy Chief Executive Member in the list submitted by Kharkongor to the Governor. With the governor delaying his approval, Kharkongor had approached the High Court.
The court on Tuesday asked the governor to give approval to the list.
Speaking to The Shillong Times, Kharpuri said that there is a need for stability and strength in the KHADC and currently the UDF has been reduced to a minority.
“It is not about the chair or position. I have to work as per the mandate of the people and cater to them”, she added.
She went on to say that in reality, the UDF has lost majority and its strength has been reduced to 13 MDCs.
Last year, besides Kharpuri, Congress MDC Batskhem Ryntathiang had also left the UDF and joined the United Democratic Alliance (UDA).
Court takes different view
Earlier, during the hearing of the case, when the Advocate General raised the issue of MDCs switching allegiance, the court observed that mere perception of the present ruling dispensation that the members of the council are shifting their allegiance, from one group to another, based on their political and personal gains, cannot be a reason for the court not to entertain the petition of KHADC CEM which is founded entirely on a different cause of action, namely, the advice tendered by the CEM, whose election has been approved by the governor himself, for appointment of the deputy chief executive member and the executive members of the KHADC as envisaged in Rule 20 of the Rules of 1951, having not been acted upon by the governor.
Free to move no-confidence motion
“If at all what is being alleged is correct that there is frequent shifting of allegiance by members of the District Council to various groups for political gains, appropriate course for them would be to again invoke Rule 71 read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 38, 1951 by moving no-confidence motion against him, like they did against the erstwhile Chief Executive Member”, the court said.
Delay breeds horse trading
According to the court, omission to timely notify the appointment of deputy chief executive member and members of the Executive Committee would only breed an atmosphere of uncertainty and encourage horse-trading, undermining the constitutional values and autonomy of the District Council.
The court said that looking to the scheme envisaged by the Constitution makers in Article 244 read with Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the administration of scheduled and tribal areas, on certain specific matters, has been entrusted to the Autonomous District Councils. These areas are enlisted in Part I, IIA and III, appended to para 20 of the Sixth Schedule.
Members of the Autonomous District Councils are elected by popular vote on the basis of adult suffrage (very few being nominated) which reflects the will of the people.
The question whether the petitioner enjoys the confidence of the Council therefore cannot be a matter to be decided by the governor on the aid and advice of the government but can be decided only on the floor of the house, the court said.
“If majority of the members of the District Council by resolving to pass the no-confidence motion against the erstwhile Chief Executive Member, have elected the petitioner on such post even when the Council was already in session and was not specially convened, the core issue would still be whether the petitioner enjoys the confidence of majority. And if he does not, he can be unseated from his office only in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules of 1951”, the court added.
