SHILLONG, Jan 28: The High Court of Meghalaya on Friday refused to interfere or cause any delay in holding the no-confidence motion in the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) on Saturday.
Hearing a petition filed by GHADC Chief Executive Member Benedic Marak, Justice HS Thangkhiew in his order said, “This court is satisfied that there are no reasons to interfere or cause any delay in holding the no-confidence motion, in as much as, the entire process notwithstanding any other consideration is part and parcel of a democratic process which strengthens democratic values.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the instant application is held to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed,” the order said.
The application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed assailing a January 27 notice issued by the Governor of Meghalaya under Rule 36(5) of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, whereby the council was summoned to take up a no-confidence motion against the Executive Committee of the GHADC in Tura on January 29.
Senior advocate K. Paul submitted that petitioner Marak was compelled to seek the court’s interference in view of the fact that the entire process which culminated in the impugned notice, was fraught with procedural irregularities that necessarily need to be corrected in order for any session of the district council to be summoned.
He said 15 members of the district council (MDCs) had on January 25 sought leave from the chairman to move a motion of no-confidence against the chief executive member in accordance with Rule 71 of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951.
He further submitted that the said request was then transmitted by the chairman to the District Council Affairs Department. Thereafter, the Governor in the exercise of powers under Rule 36(5) of the 1951 Rules called for a special meeting to be convened on January 29.
Citing Rule 71 of the 1951 Rules, Paul said a no-confidence motion can be set in motion after the presentation of a written notice of the motion before the commencement of the sitting of the day, and if the chairman is of the opinion that the motion is in order shall proceed accordingly.
Advocate General Amit Kumar contended that the present case has been brought before the court by the petitioner to defeat a legitimate democratic process initiated by the members of the district council themselves.
He drew the attention of the court to the January 25 letter, which is the requisition for the summoning of the house by 15 members of the council. He submitted that a bare perusal of the letter itself reflects the necessity of summoning the house, which is therefore the basis on which the subjective satisfaction was arrived at by the Governor.
The AG also submitted that a plain reading of Rule 36(5) shows the Governor is vested with the power that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, he can summon a meeting of the district council at any time he deems fit.
The session that has been summoned, he submitted, is all part and parcel of a fair and transparent process necessitated by the situation on the ground and a delay in the said process might have adverse effects.
He further submitted that the no-confidence motion, which will be a floor test, is in the best interest of a democratic institution and possibly the most effective mechanism to settle the respective claims of the parties.