SHILLONG: The UDF has pointed out interference on the part of the MDA government which led to the imposition of administrator’s rule in KHADC.
In response to Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong hailing the administrator’s rule in KHADC, a senior leader of UDF said on Sunday that there is a clear-cut interference from the state government on council affairs.
The leader said that the state government was in favour of administrator’s rule and it was expressed many times and finally, the governor succumbed to the pressure of the government, whereas the governor himself had stated that he did not want to meddle with the council affairs as it is an autonomous body.
The UDF leader questioned as to whether the governor, in relation to the district councils in Meghalaya, can act on the advice of the council of ministers.
As far as the councils in Meghalaya are concerned, the governor will act according to the rules and provisions of the Sixth Schedule with few discretionary powers as mandated by Article 244(2).
Exception is only for the councils in Assam and Mizoram after the new amendments of para 20 BA and 20BB and the governor has to consult the council of ministers.
“But this is just a consultation and not any advice from the council of ministers”, he said.
Not a valid reason
The UDF leader said under para 16(2), the administrator’s rule can be invoked only when the council cannot carry on in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule but the order of the government on February 7 clearly states that the reason to invoke administrator’s rule is due to the frequent changing of allegiance by the MDCs.
However, there is no such provision in the Sixth Schedule to bar MDCs from switching of allegiance except the 10th Schedule in the Constitution, which does not apply to councils.
According to the UDF leader, this clearly shows that the reason to invoke administrator’s rule in KHADC is not substantiated. In fact, the state government and the governor should understand that only rule number 71 of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous District (Constitution Of District Councils) rules 1951 as amended can provide provision for testing the stability and confidence of the Executive Committee on the floor of the House, the leader said.
“We fail to understand that the CEM who was democratically elected in the House has been thrown out without any substantial provision of the Constitution and also, after the order of Meghalaya High Court for appointment of the EMs, no opportunity has been given to the new Executive Committee to administer the council as per provision of the 6th Schedule”, he said.
In fact, the office of the governor is to ensure protection and sustenance of the constitutional process as observed by a bench of nine judges of the apex court in the case of SR Bommai, he added.
