Strengthening the MPSC: A Call for fair & incorruptible leadership
Editor,
The Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC) plays a pivotal role in shaping the state’s governance by ensuring that recruitment for government posts is conducted fairly and transparently. Under this leadership, the commission has implemented several best practices that have significantly improved its credibility. The release of marks post-examination, the publication of answer keys, and other measures have increased transparency, giving deserving candidates greater confidence in the system. These reforms signal a positive shift, restoring faith among aspirants who dedicate years of preparation for these competitive exams.
Civil society and advocacy groups have played a crucial role in pushing for these improvements. Their persistent calls for accountability and fairness have ensured that the Commission remains open to constructive reforms. MPSC’s willingness to engage in logical and practical dialogue has led to meaningful changes, proving that an accountable system benefits both the institution and the public it serves.
Despite these positive developments, there is still room for further progress. One of the most critical aspects that requires attention is the appointment of MPSC’s chairman and members. The credibility of the Commission depends largely on the integrity of its leadership. It is imperative that those selected for these roles are individuals of unimpeachable character, with a demonstrated commitment to fairness and good governance. Political favouritism or appointments based on convenience rather than competence can erode the Commission’s credibility, undermining the progress made so far.
To further strengthen MPSC, the government must ensure that future appointments prioritize individuals with proven administrative experience, a strong ethical foundation, and a clear vision for reform. Additionally, areas such as streamlining the examination process, expediting result timelines, and enhancing overall efficiency must remain key priorities. Aspirants should not have to wait for years for recruitment processes to conclude—timely and transparent examinations will further reinforce trust in the system.
The Government must recognize that the future of Meghalaya’s public administration depends on a meritocratic and transparent recruitment process. Appointing incorruptible leaders to the MPSC is not just a necessity—it is a responsibility. By ensuring that the right individuals helm the Commission, Meghalaya can take a decisive step toward a more efficient, accountable, and aspirant-friendly system that truly serves the interests of its people.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request,
Via email
Why Sixth Schedule scores over Article 371
Editor,
Apropos of the news “Kharkrang joins Article 371 vs Sixth Schedule debate, roots for latter” (ST 4the February 2024), it may be stated that Article 371 of the Constitution includes “Special provisions” for 11 states in the country, including six states of North East India. Article 370 and 371 were part of the Constitution at the time of its commencement on January 26, 1950; Articles 371A through 371J were incorporated subsequently.
Article 371A (13th Amendment Act, 1962), for Nagaland was inserted after a 16-point agreement between the Centre and the Naga People’s Convention in 1960 which led to the creation of Nagaland in 1963 and it reads “Parliament cannot legislate in matters of Naga religion or social practices, Naga Customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law, and ownership and transfer of land without concurrence of the state Assembly”.
Article 371B (22nd Amendment Act, 1969), Assam reads, “the President may provide for the constitution and functions of a committee of the Assembly consisting of members elected from the State’s tribal areas”.
Article 371C (27th Amendment Act, 1971), Manipur reads, “the President may provide for the constitution of a committee of elected members from the Hill areas in the Assembly, and entrust “special responsibility” to the Governor to ensure its proper functioning”.
Article 371F (36th Amendment Act, 1975), Sikkim reads, “the members of the legislative Assembly of Sikkim shall elect the representative of Sikkim in the House of the people. To protect the rights and interests of various sections of the population of Sikkim, Parliament may provide for the number of seats in the Assembly, which may be filled only by candidates from those sections”.
Article 371G (53rd Amendment Act, 1986), Mizoram reads, “Parliament cannot make laws on “religious or social practices of the Mizo’s, Mizo customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Mizoram customary law, ownership and transfer of land…unless the Assembly… so decides”.
Article 371H (55th Amendment Act, 1986), Arunachal Pradesh says The Governor has a special responsibility with regard to law and order, and “he shall, after consulting the Council of Ministers, exercise his individual judgement as to the action to be taken”.
The significance is that all these provisions take into account the special circumstances of individual states, and lay down a wide range of specific safeguards that are deemed important for these northeastern States but Article 371 does not grant these states the power to make their own laws. Article 371 and its sub-article (such as 371A, 371B, etc) provide special provisions for certain states, but they do not grant legislative powers to the states. Instead, these provisions focus on ensuring equitable development, protecting cultural and economic interests, and addressing specific needs of the states. In contrast, the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution empowers District Councils in the northeastern region, including Meghalaya, to frame rules and act as custodians of culture and indigenous people. Here lies the wisdom of Rev. James Joy Mohan Nichols Roy the architect of the Sixth Schedule.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
Wanted effective labour laws
Editor,
A woman who used to work in a beauty product company was asked to quit her job by her employer when her chemotherapy started. This shows the absence of effective labour laws in our country. In addition, the social security net for such workers is almost non-existent. A worker can fight against cancer. But what can she/he do when the whole environment is afflicted with malignancy? High profit margins resulting in high cost for most of the medicines including life- saving ones is another symptom of malignancy in our society. In such an environment, it is impossible for a common person to overcome even a treatable disease and a manageable crisis.
Yours etc.,
Sujit De,
Kolkata