Wednesday, December 11, 2024
spot_img

HC adjourns hearing on entry point

Date:

Share post:

spot_img
spot_img

SHIILLONG, April 15: Ever since its inception in December last year, the Umling facilitation centre in Ri Bhoi has had many casting aspersions on it; but what took the demurrals a notch higher was a PIL which was filed in the Meghalaya High Court by a consortium of lawyers, seeking the closure of the entry-exit gate. Now, no sooner did the matter was listed for hearing before the Court’s division bench on Thursday, than it encountered a stumbling block. As the Advocate General was “unrepresented in spite of notice being served”, the Court adjourned the matter till April 22.
“Since the vires of a state statute is under challenge, we adjourn the matter till next Thursday (22nd April, 2021), so that on the next date, the learned Advocate General or his representative appears,” the division bench of the High Court said in its order.
The much-debated entry point in Umling was set up by the state government based on the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act (MRSSA), 2016. It is worth mentioning that notwithstanding widespread dissent, the government is in the process of setting up similar entry-exit points in Ratacherra and Bajengdoba of Garo Hills.
The lawyers, in the PIL, claimed that the MRSSA infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country and claimed that the state legislature does not have any power to make laws prohibiting or restricting the entry and exit of Indian citizens under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
It was alleged in the petition that the state government, in the guise of safety of residents or in the name of COVID-19, was indirectly trying to implement the Inner Line Permit (ILP), which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the President of India by way of issuance of order under Clause 2 of Article 372 of the Constitution of India or of the central government.
Stating that “constitutional authority cannot do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly and if it does, that will be a fraud on the Constitution”, the PIL argued that similar fraud has been committed by the state while trying to implement the ILP in the guise of resident safety by bringing in the MRSSA.

spot_img
spot_img

Related articles

NESO-KSU observes Black Day against CAA

Shillong, Dec 11: Black flags were put up in the city on Wednesday, particularly at Khyndai Lad, Motphran...

Two-member UNHCR team meets Rohingyas in Jammu

Jammu, Dec 11: Officials said here on Wednesday that a two-member team of the United Nations High Commissioner...

B’luru man kills self over Rs 3 cr divorce settlement demand; body for harassed men to move SC

Bengaluru, Dec 11: Following the death of an automobile company executive from Uttar Pradesh in Bengaluru allegedly over...

73 pc of e-commerce, tech startups planning workforce expansion in India

Bengaluru, Dec 11: About 73 per cent of the e-commerce and tech startups are planning workforce expansion, signalling...