By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Feb 17: The Opposition on Tuesday voiced strong resentment a day after Speaker Thomas A. Sangma invoked the “sub judice” rule to deny an adjournment motion by VPP MLA Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, effectively blocking any debate on illegal coal mining in Meghalaya—despite the devastating tragedy of the February 5 dynamite blast at a coal mine in Mynsngat-Thangsko that claimed 33 lives and injured several others.
The motion specifically sought discussion on rampant illegal coal mining and related lapses, spotlighting the devastating blast as a glaring example of ongoing administrative failure and recurring policy negligence.
Citing Rule 57 (VI) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, the Speaker ruled the matter inadmissible since it falls under adjudication before the High Court of Meghalaya (in PIL No. 2 of 2022, In Re: Illegal Coal Mining in the State of Meghalaya).
He noted a communication from the Mining and Geology Department confirming the issue—including enforcement lapses, transportation, storage, and livelihood concerns—is pending judicial consideration, and referred to legal opinion from the Advocate General deeming it an “absolute bar” under Rule 117(d).
Opposition leaders, led by Basaiawmoit, fiercely contested this, arguing that the sub judice clause is being misused as a convenient shield to evade accountability on urgent public matters. Invoking Article 194 of the Constitution—which safeguards freedom of speech and privileges in State Legislatures—Basaiawmoit stressed that the House retains the right to discuss administrative lapses, policy failures, government negligence, and preventive steps, even if a case is pending, as long as it does not interfere with judicial proceedings or comment on guilt, evidence, or findings.
“What happened in Mynsngat–Thangsko is a serious concern. Members of this House should be given an opportunity to deliberate on this issue,” he asserted, stressing on public demand for transparency on illegal mining and coal transportation.
He further argued that the days of denial by the state government are over.
Leader of Opposition Mukul Sangma reinforced this, urging the government to seek separate court cognisance for the recent incident rather than allowing it to be subsumed under the broader PIL, which could delay justice and dilute accountability. He referenced Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, to argue for targeted handling.
The Speaker, however, stood firm: Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma had already made a suo motu statement on the matter, and the ruling under Rule 57 was final—no debate would be allowed.
Outside the House, Basaiawmoit lambasted the government for repeatedly hiding behind sub judice provisions to avoid embarrassment. He questioned the official casualty figure of 33, citing local accounts suggesting 60-70 miners typically work in such sites and that the blast affected multiple adjacent mines. “We want to know how many miners were actually there… The government must get details from the arrested people,” he demanded.
He also criticised the premature call-off of rescue operations and expressed deep skepticism about the announced judicial inquiry, pointing to the poor track record of previous commissions. “No one can crush the issue under the carpet when nature decides to unveil the truth,” he said.
Basaiawmoit further slammed the government’s leniency—transferring the East Jaintia Hills SP instead of suspending or acting against district heads—and accused those in power of involvement in illegal extraction, despite claims of zero tolerance.
He also highlighted a Cabinet Minister’s “shock” at ongoing illegal mining as disingenuous, given repeated tragedies in the state.
