Meghalaya Govt to discuss MRSSA Bill with stakeholders

Staff Reporter

Shillong, Nov 15: Deputy Chief Minister in-charge Home Prestone Tynsong has informed that the state government will soon call a meeting with all stakeholders to discuss the letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which has returned the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Amendment Bill (MRSSAB), 2020. 

Tynsong has informed this to a delegation of the Hynniewtrep Youth Council (HYC), which met him today.

Addressing media persons, HYC president Roy Kupar Synrem said that the delegation had sought an explanation from the government on the decision of the MHA and the status of the MRSSAB, 2020.

“During our discussion, the deputy CM has informed us that the MHA has indeed returned the Bill with an observation and a direction that the state government of Meghalaya should revisit the provisions of the Bill,” he said.

“As to what are the provisions that has to be revisited by the government, the deputy CM told us that the MHA has certain reservations when it comes to setting up of entry-exit points or the gates as per the provisions of the Act (because such) gates will create inconvenience to the visitors or the people who enter the state,” Synrem said. 

He said, “Secondly, the MHA has reservation or has put a direction that any Bill or any Act which is made by the state government should not be against or in contravention against any Act passed by the parliament…so they should look into those two aspects.”

The HYC president said that the delegation has requested the deputy CM to provide a copy of the MHA letter so that they can also give suggestions to the government.

Synrem said that the deputy CM has also informed that the state government in the next few days will be calling a meeting with all stakeholders in order to discuss regarding the MHA letter.

“After we get the letter maybe we can give a proper suggestion to the government as to how the government should move forward,” he added.

Synrem said that he cannot comment any further on the MHA letter but the demand of the HYC is for the Governor to grant his assent to the MRSSAB, 2020 at the earliest.

“We have made two demands before the government – if you cannot give us ILP, give us MRSSAB but at the same time we understand that the Centre is a bit hesitant to give ILP, so we request the government that the amendment Bill should be passed but as far as we understand right now, the amendment Bill will take time because there should be a discussion as to how it should be streamlined so that the concerns raised by the MHA should not be a problem for the state to implement the Act,” he said.

Roster system: Ampareen assures justice to every community

Spokesperson of Meghalaya Democratic Alliance government Ampareen Lyngdoh has assured that the government will come up with the best solution to ensure there is no ‘injustice’ done to any community while implementing the roster system in the state.

“We will come out with the best solution and we will ensure that solution is manifested in credible information,” Lyngdoh told reporters today.

“I appeal to the people of Meghalaya and political parties across the board to kindly allow us to collect data, to ensure data collected is credible and to ensure that in applying this roster there shall be no injustice done to any one community. We are Meghalayans and we must understand that the government is for the people of Meghalaya,” she added.

Also referring to the ongoing debates on the issue, the cabinet minister said, “I appeal to political parties to be confident that the government is taking all advisories, suggestions, being debated and we will evaluate those suggestions and we will incorporate and come out with a roster which is going to be acceptable, which is going to be justified and which is going to have credible source of data.”

Stating it is a very difficult situation, she said, “We are trying our best now to ensure that while debating and discussing this matter, we should not be seen as taking anyone’s side, we will try our best to present to the people the best solution.”

On the other hand, Lyngdoh also asserted the need for citizens of the state to ensure that a practice that was propagated since the inception of the state with its positives and negatives should not be discussed beyond logical debate while citing that reservation policy is a very unique application.

According to her, the government is also aware that the roster does in all likelihood create some sort of a sense of insecurity amongst communities that are enjoying this reservation in the state of Meghalaya.

Urging the people of the state not to underestimate the capacity of the government to evaluate what practice will benefit the state in the long run, the spokesperson said, “We have been actively engaging on understanding the roster as it was and how best can we take that forward protecting the interest of all communities who will gradually and definitely be affected by it.”

“I want to give an assurance to the people of the state that the government is engaging actively. We have been advised by various court orders to ensure that we have a systematic application of the reservation policy that will seem like a policy that is sensitive to citizens across the board. We will try our best to understand this system and to ensure that while applying it we should not seem as a government that is unjustly applying a system,” she said while adding “This order of the High Court is going to have positive application in the future. We must as a state adhere to justice for all. We must provide a fair playing ground for all communities and we will try our best to ensure that in its future application we apply the system in the best and most justified manner. We are procuring all datas from all line departments to understand how the roster has been applied in the state thus far and we will adhere to advisories that are going to be productive in the long run for the state and the citizens of Meghalaya.”

On the demand of the Voice of the People Party (VPP) to review the state reservation policy, Lyngdoh said, “Again, I want to reiterate that toying with discussion and debate about the roster on public domain coming out with statements which can seem as bias is the incorrect practice forward.”

“It is not fair to give suggestions that may not be workable or doable. So we will not talk about any one political party but we appeal to all political parties that this is a very sensitive issue, we do not want to see it go out of hand,” she said while requesting all civil societies and NGO members to have faith in the government which will come out with the best solution.

SC verdict on pleas for independent mechanism to appoint EC on Thursday

New Delhi, March 1 (IANS) The Supreme Court will deliver judgment on Thursday on a batch of petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of Election Commissioners (ECs) and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

A constitution bench, headed by Justice K.M. Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar had reserved judgment in the matter on November 24, 2022. According to the cause list, two judgments, each by Justices Joseph and Rastogi, will be pronounced at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday in the matter.

During the arguments, Attorney General R. Venkataramani had told the Supreme Court that if it were to begin to doubt every step taken by the government in the process of appointment of the Election Commissioner, then it has implications on the integrity and independenceA of the institution.

The five-judge constitution bench, headed by Justice Joseph, had then shot a volley of questions at the country’s top law officer in connection with the appointment of Election Commissioner Arun Goel. It posed some critical questions to the AG in connection with Goel’s appointment: what deliberation could have been done to finalise his name within 24 hours, same-day clearance, same day process completed, and the appointment was made not even in 24 hours.

The Centre had, however, maintained that there is no trigger point for the Supreme Court to interfere in the appointment process of the Election Commissioner.

After hearing detailed arguments, the Supreme Court reserved the judgment on a batch of petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of the ECs and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

During the hearing, the Supreme Court had told the Centre that it wants to see the files relating to the recent appointment of Goel as the Election Commissioner and emphasised that it wants to see by what mechanism, “he was picked up”, and “there is no danger to produce it (files)”.