United Democratic Party leader and cabinet minister Paul Lyngdoh today said a solution to a blunder committed in regard to the state reservation policy for the past 50 years cannot come in a matter of five days.

“It is also a fact that a blunder was committed 50 years ago so how do you resolve that? It is more difficult because it is an issue that has been festering for half a century so a solution will not come in five days. A blunder that has been perpetuated for 50 years cannot be resolved in five days in five weeks or even five months but let it be resolved bit by bit,” Lyngdoh told reporters.

The West Shillong legislator said, “Why are you saying that it is not a blunder. There are a lot of errors in the entire policy. For instance, giving space of two-three years for a post to be filled up means you are undermining, and compromising the quality of the administration. Now if an office has to have 12 staff members and because you have to wait for two years it means that the office is running short of staff for 2-3 years – that itself is a blunder.”

Admitting the danger if the reservation policy is being challenged, he said, “It is (dangerous) as there are a lot of intricacies involved,” while cautioning everyone that “we should not end up shooting ourselves in our leg, let us not inflict self-wounds.”

On the implementation of the roster system, Lyngdoh, who is also a spokesperson of the MDA government, informed that the MDA is going to meet at the end of this week or early next week to discuss this matter.

“The matter is also coming up before the cabinet and an All-party meet is also being called. So at these different platforms, we will get an exchange of views and I am sure the best of views will come forward,” he asserted.

Referring to the concerns expressed if the roster system is implemented retrospectively, Lyngdoh said, “That is a very valid concern so accordingly I will put my views across in the Cabinet that if at all  it has to be done it can be done only prospectively one, two you can take the matter up to the Supreme Court, three, the State Assembly has the option of legislation – so which of these options or which combination of these options will work best that is entirely up to the House and the Cabinet to decide.”

“Therefore, let it come up before the cabinet. Let a cabinet memo be prepared. I will study the memo and articulate my point of view in the cabinet but first let the cabinet memo be put up,” he stated.

On the other hand, Lyngdoh reminded that the UDP had in fact listed as number one on its manifesto a change of the reservation policy and said, “We fielded 46 candidates and only 11 of us won. Even if you only think of the Khasi-Jaintia sector, we won 11 out of 36, minus the 10 we fielded in the Garo Hills, so it means that the majority of the constituencies are not interested in any change of the reservation policy.”

He said it also means that 25 constituencies did not favour a change of the reservation policy adding “Even if you combine UDP 11 plus VPP 4 that will still make it 15 and 15 out of 36 is still not a majority.”

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.