SHILLONG, June 24: The Opposition MDCs in the KHADC on Tuesday staged a walkout from the floor of the House after the VPP-led Executive Committee refused to rectify the concern they had raised regarding the supplementary expenditure being brought before the main budget was passed.
Council Chairman, Strong Pillar Kharjana, sought the sense of the House, asking MDCs who wanted the budget to be presented on the first day of the Council’s summer session to stand from their seats following continued objections from Opposition Leader, Titosstarwell Chyne, who argued that the actions of the EC were illegal.
Knowing that the ruling VPP had the majority, the Opposition MDCs staged a walkout when the Chairman called upon the Executive Member in charge of Finance, Seiborlang Warbah, to present the budget for the fiscal year 2025-2026.
Speaking to reporters, Chyne said they were shocked as the EC continued to maintain its stand and refused to make any rectifications.
“It was better for us to walk out, since the budget presented in the House is ineffective and unconstitutional,” he stated.
He said it was unfortunate that the EC remained adamant, despite his objections and those raised by senior MDC Grace Mary Kharpuri.
“We had pointed out errors in the budget book. The budget book is a detailed estimated financial plan outlining the anticipated revenue and proposed spending for the current financial year, prepared by the EC,” Chyne explained.
He pointed out that in Grant No. 1, meant for the GAD, there was a mention of supplementary expenditure for 2024-2025 amounting to ₹1.88 crore. He said there was also a mention of supplementary expenditure for 2024-2025 in Grant No. 6, meant for the Legislative Wing.
He stated that the supplementary expenditure reflected in the budget book had already been included in the three-month vote-on-account (April to June 2025) when the present EC took over the administration.
“How can the EC bring the same supplementary expenditure again when it has already been regularised in the vote-on-account? This only reflects the inefficiency of the EC in governing the affairs of the Council,” Chyne said.
He reiterated that supplementary demands cannot be incorporated into the main budget.
“But the rules do allow the EC to bring supplementary demands after the main budget is approved,” he added.
Later, Warbah clarified that there is no rule preventing the EC from bringing a supplementary expenditure under a new sub-head if the need arises. Speaking to reporters after the session, he stated that the decision to bring the supplementary expenditure was to enable the Council to have funds at its disposal to handle emergencies that may arise.
In response to a query, he admitted that the supplementary expenditure proposed in the budget may be related to the payment of salaries for the 43 employees who were terminated.
“But the funds proposed in the supplementary expenditure will also cater to requirements depending on the need and necessity,” he said.
When asked why the House was adjourned if the EC had not committed any error by bringing the supplementary demand, the Executive Member in-charge of Land and Development, Powel Sohkhlet, declined to comment on the “prerogative of the Chairman” to adjourn the House.
Taking a dig at the opposition MDCs, Sohkhlet remarked that if one closely observes, it would be clear that the opposition MDCs have been engaging in drama since the first day of the budget session in March.
“Even today, there was another drama where the opposition objected to the decision of the EC to bring the supplementary demand. Are the opposition members saying that we did not do our homework before presenting the budget in the House?” he asked.
Sohkhlet added that it is the prerogative of the EC and the Finance Department to decide how they want to present the budget on the floor of the House.
House adjourned for two hours
Earlier, Chyne criticised the VPP-led EC for setting a wrong precedent by introducing a supplementary expenditure before the House had passed the main budget.
He questioned how the EC could bring a supplementary expenditure related to the fiscal year 2024-2025, which has already concluded. He also raised concerns over the selective treatment of expenditures.
“If the supplementary demand meant for paying establishment staff is illegal, then why was there no issue with the supplementary demand of ₹25 lakh for education passed in the same session?” he asked.
In response, Warbah explained that the EC introduced the supplementary expenditure for 2024-2025 as a precaution, given that a court case is still pending.
“We brought this supplementary demand to be on the safer side, in case the court’s ruling goes against the Council,” he said.
Chyne, who was not satisfied with the reply of the EM, pointed out that the pending court case pertains to the termination of 43 council employees, which has no connection with the budget.
“Let the court decide whether to reinstate or terminate the employees. But why are you doing something illegal on the floor of the House?” he asked, urging the EC to challenge the matter in court if needed.
He reiterated that the supplementary expenditure and the ongoing court case are unrelated.
Following the heated exchange and sustained objections from the Opposition, Kharjana adjourned the session for two hours.
