SHILLONG, Feb 27: The High Court of Meghalaya has ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in the functioning of the Speaker that would invite its interference.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Indra Prasanna Mukerji and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh made this observation while hearing an appeal by North Shillong’s Voice of the People Party MLA, Adelbert Nongrum.
On February 15, 2024, Nongrum presented a special motion which the Speaker disallowed under Rule 130A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Legislature. The subject matter of the special motion was a part of the CAG report on the social and economic sectors for the year ending March 31, 2022. It deprecated an expenditure of Rs 156.14 crore made by the Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited (MePDCL) in awarding contracts under the Saubhagya scheme.
The centrally funded scheme was conceived by the Centre but its implementation was with the state government through the project implementing agency, Saubhagya.
The state government, in turn, implemented the scheme through MePDCL, a corporation controlled by it.
In a terse letter on February 19, 2024, the Commissioner and Secretary of the Assembly informed the appellant that the special motion had been “disallowed” by the Speaker as it was under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee. “We do not know why in the body of the letter a reference was made to the Chief Minister as if the information was derived from him. Whether the report was considered by the Public Accounts Committee or not ought to have been within the knowledge of the Speaker,” the court said.
The appellant’s counsel used this reference to the Chief Minister to indicate that the Speaker was acting on the dictates of the Chief Minister. “We do not think so. It appears that quite unnecessarily, he sought confirmation of this information from the Chief Minister which was provided to him,” the court said.
The appellant filed the instant writ petition in this court, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Speaker reflected in the February 19, 2024, letter.
According to him, his request for the special motion presented by him to be tabled, ought to have been acceded to and the motion deliberated upon in the House.
He said there was an infringement of his right as a member of the Assembly by the Speaker. The court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to compel the Speaker to table the motion, it was contended.
The writ petition was heard extensively by a single judge of the court and two principal grounds were made out before the judge.
The first was that under Article 212 of the Constitution of India, the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute arising in the Assembly between an MLA and the Speaker.
Alternatively, it was argued that there was no illegality or irregularity in the decision of the Speaker, as the special motion could only be tabled after examination of it by the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly was completed. As such, the alleged grievance of the writ petitioner was premature.
According to the court, in this case, the motion is premature as the audit report under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the state Assembly has to be placed before the Committee of Public Accounts, for its examination under Rule 241 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
The court ruled there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in the functioning of the Speaker that would invite its interference. Article 212 comes in the way of the court adjudging the merits of the procedure followed.
“Once the auditor’s report is examined by the Public Accounts Committee, it would certainly give a fresh cause of action to the appellant to present a new special motion, if he is so advised,” the court added.
