(FRIDAY, THE 18th MARCH, 2005)


       The House met at 10.a.m. with the Hon'ble Speaker in the Chair. The day was devoted for the transaction of Government Business:


                            Starred Question Nos. 58,59,60 and 61 with Supplementaries thereto, Nos. 62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69 and to without supplementary were disposed of.


                           Demands Nos. 1 and 2 were passed since there were no cut motions against these Demands.

                           Dr. Don Kupar Roy, Deputy Chief Minister incharge Law, moved Demand No. 3.

                           Shri Manas Choudhuri moved his cut motion against Demand 3. The mover discussed at length on the unending series of adverse court verdict for the State Government during the last few years and the manner of appointment of legal Advisers and Counsels which has resulted in the loss of a no. of cases by the Government especially criminal cases. He attributed the reason to the lack of coordination between the investigating officer and the Government Counsels. He suggested setting up of a separate investigation cell to facilitate investigation of criminal cases.

                          As regards the appointment of the Government Advocates, the mover urged upon the Government to see that a thorough review is made on the appointment and that competent pleaders who are dedicated to the job should be appointed so that the State will not suffer. He called for a complete overhauling of the judicial system and for the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive according to the need of the day.

                         Shri R.G. Lyngdoh, Shri T.N. Marak and Shri P.M. Syiem participated and opposed the cut motion whereas Shri. M.Rava, Shri E.K. Sangma and Shri J.M. Marak also took part and supported the cut motion.

                         Replying to the points raised by the mover of the cut motion and other members who have taken part, Dr.Donkupar Roy, Deputy Chief Minister incharge of Law, stated that the Supplementary Demand in question, in fact relates to a specific item of expenditure i.e. (1) for the purchase of two vehicles and two Fax Machines for the offices of the Advocate general and Additional Advocate general of Meghalaya (2) for the purchase of one jeep for the office of legal Remembrancer and (3) for the payment of House rent for the accommodation of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of State Law Commission.. However, he informed the House that the Court has not given adverse verdict in all the cases that the Government was involved but that it has given its judgement according to the merit of such cases.

                        As regards winning of cases in the Court, The Deputy Chief Minister, clarified that to make Government win the cases in the court, there are many factors and conditions which are combined together to win the cases depending upon the nature and merit of the cases. He further stated that there were some cases that the Government won even in the Supreme Court.

                       On the question of appointment of Public Prosecutors and Government Advocates, he informed that they are appointed on the basis of experience in their respective fields of profession and as per qualifications which they possessed and on the willingness to serve with the State Government but not on Political consideration. He assured that efforts will be made to see that Government Advocates should work more for the interest of the State and not for their own interest.

                         In so far the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive, the Deputy Chief Minister told the House that this matter is pending in the Court and it is subjudice. However, he added that whatever the the Supreme Court would decide, the State Government has to abide with it.

                         (The time was extended until this Demand is disposed).

                         The Deputy Chief Minister incharge of Law assured that other points have been taken note of by the concerned department for examination.

                           The cut motion was thereafter withdrawn by the mover with the leave of the House and Demand No.3 was passed.


                           Since there were no other business, the House rose at 12.02 p.m. and stood adjourned till 10 a.m. on Monday, the 21st March, 2005.


                                                                              Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.