The Awakening Indian Movement (AIM) has sought the intervention of the deputy commissioner of East Khasi Hills district to ensure a blanket ban on gambling at melas being organized by different agencies.

Speaking to media persons, chairman of AIM Bansharai Marbaniang said that many people from other part of the country come to Meghalaya to host various kinds of melas, however these melas have games that encourage gambling with money which is detrimental and have a negative impact on the welfare of the people.

Marbaniang alleged that melas throughout the country are being held in order to provide entertainment to all citizens where they can experience happiness especially for children, students, and youth but at present melas in Meghalaya are being held with gambling which have detrimental and a negative impact on the welfare of the people.

“During our visit to the mela held at the Parking Lot outside Polo Ground in Shillong, the mela hosted various gambling activities with money and young people and students in uniform participated in various gambling games” said Marbaniang.

Marbaniang said that AIM is not against organizing melas in the state, however it stands against the act of gambling that is being held at the venues hence the AIM sought the intervention into this matter.

In a hard-hitting reply, sent today to the Government of Meghalaya’s blueprint for relocation of residents of Punjabi Lane, Shillong, the Harijan Panchayat Committee after multiple rounds of consultation with its members, has stated that the proposal of the government was “incomplete, unsuitable, unprepared, unfair and undemocratic.”

In an exhaustive 6-page reply sent to the Deputy Secretary of the Government of Meghalaya and to other concerned departments, the HPC letter reads, “There are serious lacunae, sweeping and undesirable conclusions in the approach and attitude of the High-Level Committee of the Meghalaya government.”

“We are absolutely devastated that since the formation of the new government, ministers, MLAs and certain groups have been making unnecessary remarks saying that the whole issue would be resolved within the month of April. What magical trick do they have up their sleeve to resolve the issue within days?  The matter is sub-judice and they are only paying lip service to respect for the judiciary. We will not buckle under political duress.”

“We have attended meetings of the government in good faith but the government is resorting to misinformation and disinformation through the media and at the meetings, the only attitude is to overawe us into submission to their proposal. The language of the political leadership is one of intimidation. They are putting our lives and properties at risk and making us vulnerable,” said HPC secretary Gurjit Singh.

The HPC has strongly alleged that the “entire exercise is an ill-founded relocation theory, which actually compels the resident citizens of the Punjabi Lane (Harijan Colony) to forego their rights, title and interest over whatever small land portion in the colony and to accept the prisons cells like accommodation being offered in the proposed Blueprint.”

Speaking to the media, HPC secretary Gurjit Singh reiterated that, “our original demands presented in the “Eight-point resolution” still stand and we will not buckle under political duress merely because it is convenient for the government to do so and simply because due to passage of time, the land has become a commercial goldmine.”

The Harijan Panchayat Committee which, despite all odds, has been spearheading a battle for rights of the residents since the last three decades, has in its detailed reply to the government said that the disputed land belongs to the Syiem of Mylliem, and not to the government and any attempt by the government to buy it is violative of the Meghalaya Land Transfer Act.

With reference to the recent incident of 31 May 2018, the HPC has stated that “taking advantage of a stray case of discord, suddenly the “relocation theory” was resurfaced for political and vested interests. We have all the official documentation necessary to live as citizens at our ancestral land in Punjabi Lane.

The letter pointed out gaping holes in the government’s blueprint -area too small and proposed houses pigeonholes, official building guidelines violated, no roadmap of demolition of present structures, no public amenities and last but not the least no specification of title to the land and the houses.

“There are so many grey areas and gaps. The government must clarify about all such concerns and only then it can be taken up for consideration by the Harijan Panchayat Committee, without prejudice to our right to reject the proposal” stated Gurjit Singh while speaking to media personnel.

Deriding the government’s haste, the HPC remarked, “It has been held by the Supreme Court of India and other courts as well that the right to lead a dignified life is an inalienable right and provisions of housing cannot be such that it is inhabitable for residents to live there. In the light of such judicial pronouncements, the residents are entitled to a better resolution.”

In an earnest appeal to the government and people of Meghalaya, Gurjit Singh said, “the government must stop the witch hunt and allow us to build our houses and we can assure that the beauty of the area will be fully maintained and for this the residents have the full support of the Sikh community.”

“The residents of Punjabi Lane want to live with honour and dignity at the land of their forefathers and it would be improper to treat them as aliens. The solution to this should be peaceful, amicable, mutual and permanent, without trampling on our fundamental rights,” he added.

The Meghalaya High Court has decided not to interfere with the judgment of the trial court which sentenced former Mawhati legislator Julius Dorphang to 25 years in imprisonment for raping a minor girl even as it directed that the survivor be paid compensation of Rs 20 lakh.

“Accordingly, the term of imprisonment of 25 years as awarded by the trial court by indicating cogent reasons therefor, does not call for any interference,” the division bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee said in its judgment while dismissing the appeal filed by Dorphang.

The Court said considering the age of the convict, such a tenure could be 15 years or 20 years or 30 years or any number of years in between. The discretion that is exercised is for the benefit of the convict by not awarding the maximum sentence permissible.

“In such a scenario, even though there is no specific prescription in the provision for awarding a sentence of 15 years or 20 years or 22 years of imprisonment if such tenure is indicated, it will be deemed to fall within the bandwidth of discretion made available to the court by the relevant provision,” it added.

Dorphang was challenging the order dated August 24, 2021 passed by the Special Judge Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO), FS Sangma in Ri-Bhoi district which sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, the Court has directed the State to ensure the continued well-being of the survivor, at least till she reaches the age of 25.

“The fine, if paid, and a total amount of compensation not less than Rs.20 lakh, should be provided by the State to the survivor by way of investments that would mature on a periodic basis for her to receive the same. In other words, the State will pay a further Rs.5 lakh to the survivor by way of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.15 lakh that she receives from the fine. If the appellant does not pay the fine and serves a further five years of rigorous imprisonment, the State will make over the equivalent amount of Rs 15 lakh to the survivor,” it said.

“The total amount of Rs 20 lakh must be invested in the name of the survivor within three months from date with the State taking adequate measures to ensure that the entire amount is not squandered in a hurry or the survivor is cheated of any part of it by any other person,” the Court added.

The judgment further stated that the State will also be responsible for taking care of all the medical needs of the survivor free of cost and befitting a Grade-II officer of the State for at least the next 20 years.

In addition, if there is any special programme or working opportunity that is available or for which the survivor qualifies or if there is any late education programme for women where the survivor may be accommodated, the State should provide all assistance to the survivor to lead a remaining normal and healthy life, it said while asserting “The society at large owes a huge apology to the brave young survivor for having failed one of its most precious and tender.”

Further, the Court stated that nothing said herein and nothing done pursuant to this judgment and order will stand in the way of the proceedings arising out of the FIR filed on behalf of the survivor at Madanryting being brought to a logical conclusion in accordance with law.

As many as nine states, including Telangana and Meghalaya, have withdrawn the general consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for probing certain offences.

The information was disclosed by Union Minister Jitendra Singh during the winter session of the Parliament in December 2022.

The minister informed the House that as per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the CBI requires the consent of the respective state governments to conduct investigations in their jurisdiction.

The state governments had granted general consent to the CBI for the investigation of a specified class of offences against specified categories of persons, enabling the agency to register and investigate those specified matters, Singh elaborated. However, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, and West Bengal have withdrawn the general consent to the CBI to investigate cases. This move could potentially create roadblocks for the CBI to investigate cases in these states.

Non-BJP-ruled states have accused the CBI of “selectively targeting” Opposition leaders.

The withdrawal of consent could also affect the CBI’s ability to investigate cases that have national significance or interstate ramifications. It remains to be seen how the CBI will navigate these challenges and continue to discharge its duties effectively.

This development highlights the need for a comprehensive review of the DSPE Act, 1946, and its provisions related to the CBI’s jurisdiction and powers.

In March this year, a Parliamentary Committee emphasised the withdrawal of general consent for the CBI probe by several states and stated that the existing law governing the federal probe agency has “several limitations”.

The committee has suggested the need to enact new legislation that defines the CBI’s status, functions, and powers.

“The Committee feels that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has many limitations and therefore, recommends that there is a need to enact a new law and define the status, functions and powers of the CBI and also lay down safeguards to ensure objectivity and impartiality in its functioning,” it said.

Rudra Vikram Singh, Supreme Court lawyer said that withdrawal of general consent means CBI does not have the general consent of a state government, it is required to apply for consent on a case-by-case basis and cannot act before the consent is given.

“However CBI can continue to investigate cases in a state registered prior to the withdrawal of general consent. In July 2022, the Calcutta High Court, in a case of illegal coal mining and cattle smuggling being investigated by the CBI, ruled that the central agency cannot be stopped from investigating a Central government employee in another state,” said Singh.

“In its order, the High Court observed that corruption cases across the country must be treated equally and that Central government employees could not be exempted from an investigation on the grounds that their offices were located in states that have withdrawn general consent. The judgment also said that withdrawal of general consent and its ramifications would be applicable in cases where exclusively state government employees were involved,” he added.

This order, however, has been challenged in the Supreme Court, where the matter is still pending. Hence, as it stands, the CBI can use the Calcutta High Court order to its advantage to carry on certain investigations until the order is struck down by the Supreme Court.

Gurmeet Nehra, legal scholar and member of the Supreme Court Bar Association said that CBI can approach the local court of that state for issuing a search warrant and it can register a case in Delhi and proceed with the investigation.