SHILLONG, AUG 5: Meghalaya governor KK Paul’s principal secretary MS Rao said the approval of the governor for the introduction of the bill relating to Garo Customary Law does not amount to an assent.
Rao statement followed a day after Tennydard M Marak, who is waging a legal battle against chief minister Mukul Sangma Schedule Tribe status, accused the governor of failing to defend the constitution.
Taking strong exception to the governor’s “approval” to what he termed as the “anti-people” Garo Hills Autonomous (Codification of the Garo Customary Laws) Bill, 2009, Marak said, “I am shocked to learn how the governor gave his approval to a bill which is hundred per cent against public policy, well-being and the interest of the indigenous Garo people of Meghalaya?
However, Rao issued a statement saying that the approval of the Governor was conveyed for introduction of the bill in the district council which does not amount to assent of the bill.
According to Rao, the bill was received by the Governor’s secretariat for prior approval of the Governor for introduction of the Bill in the District Council under sub-rule (3) (a) of Rule 73 of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 (Amended) as applicable to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council.
Rao said, “Prior approval of the Governor for the introduction of the Bills is required only to determine the issue of jurisdiction of the District Council to legislate on the subject matter as indicated in the sub-rule (3) (b) of Rule 73 of the said Rules.”
Rao further said it is not for the purpose of examining the merits of the Bill which is done only after the same is presented to the Governor under sub-para 3 of Para 3 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India after the Bill has been passed by the District Council and is recommended by the state government for the assent of the Governor.”
Rao added that bill in question was recommended by the state government for introduction in the District Council along with the opinion of the Advocate General indicating that the subject matter of the bill is within the legislative competence of the District Council in terms of Para 3 (h), 3 (i) and 3 (j) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.- By Our Reporter
+ There are no comments
Add yours