SHILLONG, June 19: Opposition MDCs on Friday demanded the scrapping of a 2024 executive order governing the collection of court fees and stamp fees in the District Council courts, triggering a heated debate in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) over the legal basis for levying such charges.
The issue came to the fore during Question Hour on the third day of the Council’s budget session when members questioned the authority under which court fees and stamp fees are being collected.
The debate began after Nongpoh MDC Rona Khymdeit sought clarification on the legal provision that empowered the Council to levy such fees. In reply, Executive Member in charge of Law and Legal Matters, Deity H. Majaw, informed the House that an executive order issued in 2024 facilitated the collection of the fees.
The response drew objections from Opposition Leader Titostarwell Chyne, who questioned the legality of imposing court fees and stamp fees solely through an executive order.
He argued that if the order lacked backing from a specific provision of law or the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, it should be withdrawn.
Several members echoed similar concerns, arguing that an executive order could not substitute for a properly enacted legal provision. They maintained that the Council must clearly establish the statutory basis for collecting the fees.Earlier, replying to a query raised by Sohiong MDC Synshar Kupar Roy Lyngdoh Thabah, Majaw informed the House that court fees are levied under the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Court Fees Rules framed under the Meghalaya Amendment Act, 1993.
She also stated that the collection of court fees and stamp fees has been in practice since 1953, when the District Council courts first became operational.
Explaining the existing fee structure, Majaw said a fee of2% is charged on the first Rs 1 lakh involved in a suit or case, while 3% is levied on amounts above that amount.
As the debate intensified, Chyne repeatedly sought clarification on the specific provision of the Sixth Schedule or any other law that authorises the Council to impose such fees. He argued that merely citing an executive order was insufficient and raised concerns over the legality of continuing the practice without a clearly defined legal framework.
Other MDCs also joined the discussion, stressing the need for transparency and legal certainty in matters relating to court fees and stamp fees.
Responding to the concerns, Majaw said the executive order had been issued during the tenure of the previous Executive Committee and was being implemented accordingly. She denied making allegations against any individual or authority while responding to members’ queries.
