PROCEEDING OF THE MEGHALAYA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLE AFTER THE FIRST GENERAL ELECTION 1972.

The House met at 9 A.M on Monday, the 2nd April, 1973 in the Assembly Chamber, Shillong with the Speaker, in the Chair.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

(To which oral replies were given)

Mr. Speaker :-  Starred Questions.

Pinewood Hotel owned by the Government of Meghalaya.

Professor Martin Narayan Majaw asked :

33. Will the Minister-in -charge of Tourism be pleased to state -

(a) Whether the Pinewood Hotel, Shillong, is owned by the Government of Meghalaya ?

(b) If so, whether Government is aware of the fact that 'Cabaret' dances have been held in this hotel ?

Shri Stanley D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Tourism) :- replied. 

33 (a) - Yes.

     (b) - Yes.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- When did the Government of Meghalaya take over the Pine Wood Hotel. ?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Tourism) :-  On 21st January 1972.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Is it a fact that on 21st January, 1972, one of these Cabaret dances was held in the Pinewood Hotel ?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Tourism) :- No, Sir,

Mr. Speaker :- Let us take up item No. 2 - Calling Attention. Prof. Majaw

Prof. M.N. Majaw (Mawhati S.T.) :-  Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I beg to call the attention of the Minister for Power and Electricity under Rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Assembly to a news item published in the Statement of 25th March, 1973 under the caption "Work on Assam Power Station going on at Feverish Pace". The matter to which I would like to call the attention of the Hon. Minister is to the statement made in a particular news-item where it is indicated that because of a great shortage of water in the Barapani Dam, there is a likelihood of power shortage arising which may even result in a complete closure of power supply to Meghalaya and other States and for that reason the Assam State Electricity Board would not be able to supply electricity to Meghalaya and other States. Now, this is a serious question, if the statements made in the newspaper are factual. It may mean that the continuation of power supply of Meghalaya would depend upon two factors- one is the early arrival of rains and another is the completion of work at the Assam Power Station. If per chance, one of them or both of these are not completed then, Meghalaya will be faced with a complete black-out. Hence, the urgency of this calling attention.

Mr. Speaker :-  Will the Minister, Power and Electricity, give a statement ?

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Power, etc.) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, during the last monsoon, the reservoir was 7 feet below the F.R.L. For this reason, the Board has started power restriction since October, 1972 by not giving new connection to the industrial consumers. Side by side the Board has also started running all the stand by diesel sets since November, 1972. It was expected that the Chandrapur Power Station would be commissioned by January/February, 1973 and if this would be done, the present power crisis would not have arisen. It was arranged that the Boiler Commissioning Engineer from Japan should arrive by the middle of October, 1972 to finalise the work so that the boiler could be commissioned in January, 1973. Unfortunately the officer for whom all travel papers, etc., where made ready expired due to heart attack (name of the Japanese Engineer was Yamashiti). His replacement could not be arranged much later, and arrived on 5th January 1973. On the very day of his arrival, the boiler was fired. On 15th January 1973, when the boiler was to be commissioned  for commercial operation, it was detected by the Japanese Engineer that there was an excessive wax deposit on the boiler tube and other equipments inside the boiler. Even then it was expected that the boiler would be in a position to be commissioned by the 1st  week of March 1973  and this was also confirmed by the Commissioning Engineer, but due to some defect in the boiler caused by the wax deposits from fuel, the boiler could not again be commissioned  during the 1st week of March as expected. It was at this stage only that the Board resorted to partial loan restriction. It would not have been necessary  to go for power restriction if the boiler could be commissioned by the 1st week of March as expected. The commissioning was, however, made on 22nd March, 1973. It may, however, be stated that in spite of the power restriction in the Lower Assam Area, this restriction has not been extended to Meghalaya. There is one statement in the newspaper report which, though correct, gives the wrong impression and I would like to refer to it  for the information of the Members and the House as a whole. It was stated in the news-paper report that the Board had diesel sets sufficient to produce about 15 MW. But soon after issuing the warning to keep them ready, etc., the sets were sold. The fact is that the Board sold the sets long long time back and the sets that were sold were also small ones which were not linked in this grid. They were the old sets sold to Manipur, West Bengal and other places and were not linked with the grid, and which could not be used in the Umiam, Umtru, Chandrapur grid. However, I would like to finally add that the Government is fully alive to the possibility of power shortage in future and has decided to take certain steps including investigation of other power system. In this connection the Kyrdemkulai Power Station is expected to be completed  by the end of 1976. So, we do not expect any power crisis in Meghalaya. 

LAYING OF REPORT

Mr. Speaker :-  Let us pass on to item No. 3 In the absence of the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, may I ask Mr. Grohon Sing A. Marak, Member of the Rules Committee to present the report of the Rules Committee.

Shri Grohon Sing A. Marak (Minister, P.W.D.) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to present the report of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker :-  Let us pass on to item No. 4. In the absence of the Minister for Finance, may I ask the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Sales Tax (amendment) Bill, 1973

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave  to introduce the Meghalaya Sales Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Sales Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

        The motion is carried. Leave is granted to introduce the Meghalaya Sales Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

        Before introducing the Bill, let me read a message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

Shillong.

The 31st March, 1973

        Under the provisions of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution of India, I B.K. Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommended the introduction of the Meghalaya Sales Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1973, in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Sd/- B.K. NEHRU

Governor.

        May I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill ?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the bill

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Sales Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1973, be introduced.

        The motion is carried. The Bill is introduced.

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill)

        Now, item No. 5. In the absence of the Minister, Finance, may I ask the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya  Purchase Tax (Amendment) Bill 1973.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the  Meghalaya  Purchase Tax (Amendment) Bill 1973.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya  Purchase Tax (Amendment) Bill 1973. The motion in carried. Leave is granted to introduce the Meghalaya  Purchase Tax (Amendment) Bill 1973.

        Before  I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill, let me read a message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

Shillong.

The 31st March, 1973

        Under the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommended the introduction of the Meghalaya Purchase Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1973, in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Sd/- B.K. NEHRU

Governor.

        Now, may I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill 

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Purchase Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1973, be introduced.

        The motion is carried. The Bill is introduced.

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill)

        Let us take up item No. 6 In the absence of the Minister, Finance, may I ask the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) bill, 1973.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I be leave to introduce the  Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Bill 1973.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Bill, 1973. 

        The motion in carried. Leave is granted to introduced the Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Bill 1973.

        Before  I asks the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill, may I read a message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

Shillong.

The 31st March, 1973

        Under the provisions of  Clause (1) of the Article 207 Constitution of India, I B.K. Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommended the introduction of the Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) (Amendment) Bill, 1973, in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Sd/- B.K. NEHRU

Governor.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Finance (Sale Tax) (Amendment) Bill, 1973, be introduced.

        The motion is carried. The Bill is introduced.

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

         Now, Let us take up item No. 7 In the absence of the Minister, Finance, may I ask the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (First Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the  Meghalaya Amusement and betting Tax (First Amendment) Bill 1973.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (First Amendment) Bill, 1973. 

        The Motion is carried. Leave is granted.

        Before  I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill, let me read a message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

Shillong.

        Under the provisions of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution of India, I Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommended the introduction of the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (First Amendment) Bill, 1973, in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Shillong

Sd/- B.K. NEHRU

The 31st March, 1973

Governor.

        May I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill ?

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question. The question is that the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (First Amendment) Bill, 1973, be introduced.

        The motion is carried. The Bill is introduced.

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill)

Mr. Speaker :- Now, let us pass on to item No. 8. May I ask the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 1973.

    The motion is carried. Leave is granted.

Before I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill, let me read a message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

        Under the provision of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution of India I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommend the introduction of the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shillong :

Sd / B. K NEHRU,

The 31st March, 1973.

Governor".

    Now, I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Amusements and Betting Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 1973, be introduced.

        The motion is carried. The Bill is introduced.

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

        Now, let us take up item No. 9. May I ask the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Passengers and Goods Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Passengers and Goods Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Passengers and Goods Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

        The motion is carried. Leave is granted.

        Before I ask the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill, let me read a message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

        Under the provision of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution of India I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommend the introduction of the Meghalaya Passengers and Goods Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973 in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Shillong :

Sd / B. K NEHRU,

The 31st March, 1973.

Governor".

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that eh Meghalaya Passengers and Goods Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973, be introduced.

        The motion is carried. The Bill is introduced.

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill)

        Now the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Product including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri W.A Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

        (The motion was carried, Leave was granted).

Mr. Speaker :- Now I read the message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

        Under the provision of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution of India I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommend the introduction of the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973, in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Shillong :

Sd /- B. K NEHRU,

The 31st March, 1973.

Governor".

Mr. Speaker :- Now the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill.

Shri W.A Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973 be introduced.

        (The Motion was carried. The Bill was introduced)

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

Mr. Speaker :- Now the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Indian Stamp (Meghalaya Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg, leave to introduce the Indian Stamp (Meghalaya Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Indian Stamp (Meghalaya Amendment) Bill, 1973.

        (The motion was carried and leave granted).

        Now I read the message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

        Under the provision of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution of India I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommend the introduction of the Indian Stamp (Meghalaya Amendment) Bill, 1973 in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Shillong :

Sd / B. K NEHRU,

The 31st March, 1973

Governor".

        Now I request the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Indian Stamp (Meghalaya Amendment) Bill, 1973 be introduced.

        (The motion was carried and the Bill introduced)

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill).

        Now the Chief Minister to beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce the Meghalaya Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that leave be granted to introduce the Meghalaya Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973.

        (The motion was carried and leave granted)

        Now I read the message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

        Under the provision of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution of India I, Braj Kumar Nehru, Governor of Meghalaya, recommend the introduction of the Meghalaya Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973 in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Shillong :

Sd / B. K NEHRU,

The 31st March, 1973

Governor".

        Now I request the Chief Minister to introduce the Bill.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the house. The question is that the Meghalaya Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 1973 be introduced.

        (The motion was carried and the Bill introduced)

        (The Under Secretary read out the title of the Bill)

        Now I request the Minister, Forests, to move that the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Application and Amendment) Bill, 1973, be taken into consideration.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Forests) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Application and Amendment) Bill, 1973, be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Bill be taken into consideration.

        (The motion carried)

        Now Since there is not amendment I request the Minister for Forests to move the motion for passing.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols-Roy (Minister, Forests) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Application and Amendment) Bill, 1973, be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Forest Regulation (Application and Amendment) Bill, 1973, be passed.

        (The motion was carried and the Bill passed).

Mr. Speaker :- Before I call upon the Minister of State for Education to move his motion for consideration of Meghalaya Board of School Education, let me read a message from the Governor.

"Raj Bhavan,

Shillong,

The 23rd March, 1973.

        In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 207 of the Constitution of India, I, Braj Kumar Nehru Governor of Meghalaya, hereby recommend to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly the consideration of the Meghalaya Board of School Education Bill, 1973.

Sd / B. K NEHRU,

Governor".

        Now the Minister of State for Education.

Shri. D.D. Pugh (Minister of State for Education) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Board Education bill, 1973 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now, put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Board of School Education Bill, 1973, be taken into consideration.

        Since there is no amendment may I request the Minister of State for Education to move that the Bill be passed.

Shri. D.D. Pugh (Minister of State for Education) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be passed.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved. Now, I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Board of School Education Bill, 1973, be passed.

        (The motion was carried and the Bill passed)

        Now the Chief Minister to move that the Meghalaya Repealing Bill, 1973, be taken into consideration.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Meghalaya Repealing Bill, 1973, be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker:- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Repealing Bill, 1973 be taken into consideration.

        (The motion was carried.)

        Since there is no amendment, may I ask the Chief Minister to move that the Bill be passed.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be passed.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that the Meghalaya Repealing Bill, 1973 be passed.

        (The Motion was carried and the Bill)

Mr. Speaker :-  Before I pass on to item No. 16, as I informed the House the day before yesterday that Shri P.C. Chyne is to appear before the House to explain himself and in the meantime. I have already issued a summons to him to appear before the Bar of the House at 9-30 a.m. Now, it is almost 9-30 - one minute short of 9-30, and I ask the Marshal to escort the gentleman to the Bar of the House with the help of the Watch and ward Assistants.

        (The Marshal announced the presence of Mr. Prosperly Chyne).

Mr. Speaker :-  Bring him to the Bar of the House (Mr. Prosperly C. Chyne entered the House and stood at the Bar of the House.)

Mr. Speaker :-  Well, Mr. Prosperly Chyne, you are at the Bar of the House, at the place which exercises supreme power in the State but before you make your submission before the House, you must swear or affirm.

Shri Prosperly C. Chyne :- I, Shri Prosperly Chandra Chyne swear in the name of God, that I will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Mr. Speaker :-  Are you Mr. Prosperly Chandra Chyne ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Mr. Speaker :-  Did you take part in the conversation in the members Lounge at the Manipur Bhavan on the 29th March. 1973 at about 3-30 p.m. where you passed adverse remarks on the ruling of the Hon'ble Speaker delivered to this august House on the 28th March, 1973 which was calculated to malign the hon. Members, the Hon'ble Speaker and the august House ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I am summoned I am taking this opportunity to explain before the House.

Mr. Speaker :-  That, you will have a chance. My question is very simple. did you take part in the conversation at the Members' Lounge at the Manipur Bhavan on the 29th March, 1973, at about 3-30 p.m. ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Yes Mr. Speaker, Sir, I did.

Mr. Speaker :-  Did you pass an adverse remark on my ruling on the 28th March. 1973, which was calculated to malign the Hon'ble Speaker and the august House ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-   Unknowingly Sir, I did.

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Chyne, the charges leveled against you are that you have committed a gross breach of privilege involving the dignity of the Chair, and this august House by your criticisms on the ruling of the Hon'ble Speaker. What have you to say Mr. Chyne ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, and the hon. House, as I was summoned and given the chance to explain before the Hon'ble Speaker and the hon. House, I beg leave to apologise and at the same time to submit that first of all, I took it as a friendly conversation as with my friends that first of all, I took it as a friendly conversation as with my friends, my elder brothers of my own flesh and blood. Secondly since we were in the common room of the hostel, in good faith, I did not think it would affect the dignity of the House. 

Mr. Speaker :-  You did not think ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :- Yes, Sir, and in particular to the Hon'ble Speaker, Thirdly, it was not my intention in any way to criticise the ruling of the Hon'ble Speaker, but only to express my feelings and views and in conclusion, I once again, tender my sincere apology and regret for the sad incident that occurred, so to say, an unfortunate incident.

Mr. Speaker :-  Will any of the hon. Members like to ask some more questions relating to the matter  involving the breach of privilege of the House.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- I would like to ask a few questions. In the first place, I would like to know the name of the person who is appearing before the Bar

Mr. Speaker :-  He has already replied. He is Mr. P.C. Chyne.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  What are your education qualifications.

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Already you might have known.

Mr. Speaker :-  What are your educational qualifications.

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  I read upto B.A.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- If so, when ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  If I am not mistaken Mr. Speaker, Sir, since I have not been acquainted with what the Members should put questions or to cross-examine me, either on the 4th September...

Mr. Speaker :-  This cross examination is only on point of facts. 

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Were you the Wahadadar of the locality

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, if I remember correctly, I got the sanad according to the Act of the District Council on the 4th of September, 1956.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- For how long were you the Wahadadar ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  At least the extent of time, I cannot remember correctly, so I cannot give a specific time Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Did you again contest for the post of Wahadadar ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I fail to understand why so far...

Mr. Speaker :-  Do you know the meaning of the contempt of court at the time you were the Presiding Officer ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  I am not a lawyer Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Mr. Speaker :- So you preside over the Court without knowing the meaning of contempt of court ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir, but I know my duty to fulfill.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to continue. Did you contest in the election to the Legislature Assembly ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Yes Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Is it a fact that you were in the campus of this Legislative Assembly on the 29th March, 1973 ?

Mr. Speaker :-  I repeat. Were you in the campus of this  Legislative Assembly on the 29th March, 1973 ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was in the campus and everywhere since I was looking after the people.

Mr. Speaker :-  He has already admitted he had conversation at the lounge.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Is it a fact that you were in the precincts  of the House in connection with the demand of a section of the border people for various relief measures ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you have given the ruling, I was all along and even inside the Hostel Common room.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, he has not answered my question.

Mr. Speaker :- Did you come to lead a group of people in the bo9rder areas to get their grievances redressed from the Government ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir,  I was not a leader but I was helping the suffering mass of the Shella Confederacy in particular and the whole border areas of Khasi and Garo Hills.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-Is it a fact that you help to organise the procession of demonstrators ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Hon'ble Minister might have seen me. I have also confessed that I was helping them. I did not talk and discuss as leader of the demonstrators.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Mr. Chyne, what are the names of the villages from which the demonstrating people have come ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, to confess you the truth, I fail to understand the Press especially "U Pyrta Riewlum" for what they blame me.

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Chyne, you are at the Bar of the House where you have to answer the questions asked by the hon. Members and not to express any more remarks on any other people.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-   Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to submit to what you order me to do.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Mr. Chyne, would you kindly answer the question ? What are the names of the names of the villages from which the demonstrating people came.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  As far as I can recollect, Mr. Speaker, Sir, it might be about 25 villages.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Will you kindly names some of them ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- It has already appeared in the paper and I will answer the question. The villages are Nongwar, Mustoh, Shella, Mawlong, Nongkroh from different localities  and like that, so the total comes to as many as 25 villages.

Mr. Speaker :-  Before the hon. Member would ask further question may I remind the House that we are exerting the supremacy of the Legislature of the State and therefore, the House must observe complete Solemnity. Mr. Pugh please carry on.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Is it not a fact that quite a few of the demonstrators who were collected actually came from Jaiaw, Laitumkhrah, and other localities of Shillong. ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  As our Hon'ble Speaker, knows, the demonstrators have come for different purposes to place before the Government their grievances, and they have not come for any other purposes but to see their friends and brothers and also to help but not to take active part in the demonstration.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Do you realise that you are liable to at least two charges of breach of privilege ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, at the moment I am only a mere cultivator and as I have said, I am not also a lawyer and as I have said I do not know what are the allegations. I have not been even given the complaint, Mr. Speaker, Sir, so I do not know what are these two charges that the Hon'ble Minister has told me just now.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, for the benefit of Mr. Chyne, I would like to reword the question, you are recorded as having said "U Member uba move ia kata ka motion u ong ha ka ruling jong phi ka bakla. Nga ruh nga sngewthuh ba phi la bakla. (The Member who moved the adjournment Motion told me that your ruling is incorrect. I am also convinced that your ruling is wrong)". This statement made by you, Mr. Chyne, has been categorically denied and refuted the hon. Member from Mawhati who moved the adjournment motion. I would like to suggest to you Mr. Chyne, that you are the person who is capable of lying, is it a fact, is it correct ?

Mr. Speaker :- In the conversation you said that the Member who moved the adjournment motion told you that the ruling of the Speaker, was wrong or incorrect and you were also  convinced that the ruling of the Speaker is wrong. so the question put by the hon. Member is that you are capable of lying.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Telling lies.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member did not say so, neither did I , so far as I remember. But Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg leave and pray before you that I may have committed a mistake in the conversation but not intentionally Mr. Speaker, Sir, For that I pay.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Are you now saying that you never made a statement ?

Mr. Speaker :-  He has said he does not remember.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Very short memory.

Mr. Speaker :-  This letter of apology was submitted to the Hon. Speaker at 4-30 p.m. on 30th March. In that letter you wrote "So I request you to kindly take it as 'pyndei kti pyndei kjhat". Can you give me the English translation of this phrase ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, the wording'poyndei kti pyndei kjat", since I am not well versed with English to give another meaning it is very difficult; it may mean touching hands and feet.

Mr. Speaker :-  So you do not only pass a remark but you really touched with your hands and feet.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  What I mean, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is a smile and that is to give impression upon your honour that I am no speaking lightly.

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Chyne just listen to me, do you know the difference between this phrase and the phrase which I am going to suggest to you ? What is the difference between "pyndei kti pyndei kjat" and "kumdei kti dei kjat". You can explain in Khasi language.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is very difficult for me to explain and moreover I am a man from the border areas, the Khasi language is not my original language, I can speak only in Nongwar language But Mr. Speaker, Sir, what I mean to say for those wordings or phrase, as I call is to give impression of my conviction and according to my good conscience even to criticise the Chair amounts to beating or kicking. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not like to remark and never like to criticise the Chair.

Mr. Speaker :-  Now, Mr. Chyne what do you mean by "pyndei kti pyndei kjat" and Kum pyndei kti pyndei kjat"

        (Mr. Prosperly Chyne could not answer)

Mr. Speaker :-  "Pyndei kti pyndei kjat" means physical fighting and "Kum pyndei kti and pyndei jat " means accidental toughing of the limbs.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg for pardon of the mistake I have committed unknowingly.

Mr. Speaker :-  Now, Mr. Maham Singh.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, before Mr. Maham Singh will participate, I would like to know because in the course or Mr. Chyne's  statement, he said that in the demonstration some people from Garo Hills also have joined. I would like to know the name of the villages within Garo Hills who have come and joined the demonstration.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I did not say that people from Garo Hills have come and joined the demonstration. but I old Mr. Speaker, Sir, before your honour and the honour of the House that we stand for the border people including the people from the border areas of Garo Hills.

Mr. Speaker :- Mr. Chyne do you remember who were present in the Members Lounge when you had a conversation   with the Hon. Speaker ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, since at that time my mind was engrossed and pre-occupied, I had friendly discussion with you.

Mr. Speaker :-  I was only invited to enter the room while you were discussing the problems in the Members' Lounge with some gentleman and a lady. Do you remember them and give the name of some of them ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I remember Mr. H.S. Lyngdoh who was sitting by your side and another lady who is the Executive Member of the District Council.

Mr. Speaker :-  Do you know the name of the Executive Member ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, the name of the Executive Member is Kong Bro. I do not know her full name.

Mr. Speaker :-  Do you know the name of other gentlemen ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not remember.

Mr. Speaker :-  Do you know the gentleman by the name of Justifilton Rapthap ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir, He was coming to the demonstration but whether he was present at the time or not, I do not remember.

Shri Maham Singh :-  Mr. Chyne how did the demonstrators from the border areas come to Shillong ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, and the hon. Members of the House, we came of our own accord and people came of their own accord 

Shri Maham Singh :- Did you come by walking or by other means ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, since we hail from the most interior border area which is bordering Bangladesh which is suffering at present (interruption)

Shri Maham Singh :-  Did you come by walking up to Shillong ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  How myself could come upto Shillong by walking ? About others I did not enquire and it is also not my duty to enquire because I have not business or concern about asking expect to see the people who are demonstrating here.

Shri Maham Singh :-  During the course when you were the Chairman or the Presiding Officer of the District court, did you pass judgement ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I could not follow.

Mr. Speaker :- When at that time you were the Wahadadar of Presiding Officer of the Subordinate Court at Shella did you ever pass judgement in any case ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I said already I was in the court so long and now that question of the hon. Member is only to take the time and to give trouble.

Mr. Speaker :-  Did you pass judgement at all or have you ever passed judgement ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir

Shri Maham Singh :-  Many orders also.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I said before, I am not a lawyer and so I cannot answer to the lawyer's questions.

Mr. Speaker :-  There is no lawyers here in this august House. all hon. Members of the House are asking questions only because you have made an attempt which tantamounts to a breach of privilege of the House. That is exactly the answer to all questions. There are no lawyers here in this august House.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Yes, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Shri Maham Singh :- Mr. Chyne when your judgement are being criticised by some people outside in  your presence will you take it as a contempt of the Court ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Never, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am after all an administrator and presiding officer before and might be I had committed mistakes which  I overlooked.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  Mr. Chyne when the Hon'ble Speaker was about to enter the Members' Lounge did you recognise him at the time as the Speaker ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, if I am allowed to say, I did not know the Hon'ble Speaker, at that time. Now as I have given an explanation, I took him as my friend and my elder brother.

Mr. Speaker :-  Do you know that the person whom you addressed as your elder brother was the Hon'ble Speaker, of this House. ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  For that I plead innocence.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  The question is that : Did you know that he was the Speaker ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I did know but at that time.

Mr. Speaker :-  No need of explanation.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  So Mr. Chyne when you said "Let us now talk as friends" then you were confronted by the Speaker. When you Said that, what did you really mean by this expression ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  By this expression I mean to address our Hon. Speaker, if I am allowed to say, not as Mr. Speaker, but as Bah Radhon Baieit.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- And here it was recorded that during this discussion you said "Then, Shall I talk by standing". What made you say this 

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, of course, though I did not take our Mr. Speaker as the Speaker of the House but you might remember that I offered you a chair and you refused. I tried to force you to be seated in the Chair. But what I meant was that I looked upon you as  an elder brother and it is better that I too stand according to politeness.

Mr. Speaker :-  Were you reminded that you were actually talking to the Speaker ? Were you reminded by someone  that y0ou wee talking to the Speaker ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  I do not remember.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  Is it as fact that the Hon. Speaker, has already said "Haba ngi don hangne to wat klet kein ba nga dei U Speaker (When we are here, please do not forget  that I am Mr. Speaker) Did he say this to you ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-   I do not remember. But if I have spoken  I mean him as Mr. Speaker. He is Mr. Speaker, any where whether inside or outside the House and I take in that sense.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  This is very important question and I would like you to listen very carefully to these words "Balei phim shah ia ka Adjournment Motion". (Why don't you allow   Adjournment Motion) ? and you also said that "I am also convinced  that your ruling is wrong". Were you aware at that time when you said these words, of the consequences of the utterances ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, if I had said like that then it might have been a slip of tongue but according to my good conscience I ought not to have said like that.

Shri S.D. Khongwir  :-  Now, I am asking a question. I want to know from you whether at that time, at that particular moment when you uttered these words to the Hon. Speaker, in his presence, were you aware of the consequences of those words ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- According to my recollection my expression was only to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that the people are very sad at the disallowance of the Adjournment Motion. That is all. But when Mr. Speaker, said,  that it was not allowed because of technical difficulties I said "Alright Mr. Speaker, we hope that you will be kindly helping the suffering mass so that it will be on the floor of the House by somebody who sympathizes our case.

Mr. Speaker :-   In other words, you thought that the Speaker, would not sympathize with the suffering people ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Now, never sympathize with the suffering people (laughter).

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  Is it a fact that on the 30th , that is, on the day after the 29th you wrote a letter to the Speaker asking for apology ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Yes.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :- What was, in fact, the intention of your writing to the Speaker ? Is it just a mere writing or did you actually want to apologise ? What was your intention.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  To sincerely apologise and to express my heart felt regret before the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker :-  Did your apologise, did you intend to apologise only when the complaint was placed on the floor of the House ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I have  already told you I am not acquainted with the complaint but since I know that I have hurt the feelings of the Speaker, Sir, and of the whole House it is my bounden duty that I should voluntarily and unilaterally beg your excuse.

Mr. Speaker :-  Perhaps you might not have offended the feelings of an individual but you have committed a breach of privilege of the sanctity of the House and of the dignity of the Chair.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  For that I apologise and even when I was not given the complaint. I simply learnt from somebody that I have hurt the feelings  of the  Speaker, and also of the House. So I voluntarily and unilaterally apologize before you, Mr. Speaker, Sir.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, Mr. Chyne stated just now that it might have been a slip of tongue, rather he has tried not to give direct replies to the various questions. If at all he is not convinced that he has committed a breach of privilege then what was intention for him to send the letter of apology. From the replies given to the various questions he wanted to say that anything was done by a slip of tongue and would avoid the replies. So, I would like to know under what circumstances or rather what was the reason behind which promoted him to say about the letter of apology.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have said that I wanted to apologise as I have voluntarily done so and only on learning that I have hurt the feelings of the Speaker and of the House.

Mr. Speaker :-  Who told you. ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  No, I have heard like that, I do not know. I wanted to give a direct reply.

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Khongwir ?

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  At the time when you said "why don't you allow the Adjournment Motion" and "I am also convinced that your ruling is wrong" did you understand that by these very words you had offended the dignity of the Speaker, and the House ? Did you realise that ? Were you aware ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, according to my recollection I did not use them. If I had, it might have been a slip of tongue Mr. Speaker, Sir, But that is not my conscience, neither is it my conviction.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  Just one more question. With regard to the demonstrations whether it is a fact that when the demonstrators came either from Nongwar and Shella they were held up at Cherra by the officer-in-charge. ?

Shri P. C. Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I don't know about that.

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  Mr. Chyne, who were the Members of this august House present at that time ?

Mr. Speaker :-  He has already replied to that questions.

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  Did not Mr. H.S. Lyngdoh advise you not to act the way you did ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, as I told, I have replied to that.

Mr. Speaker :- You have not answered to this question as to whether Mr. Lyngdoh, the hon. Members of this House, gave the warning not to utter these words.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I might somehow or other by-pass his advice.

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  You mean to says that you did not listen to his advice ?

Mr. Speaker :- Whether he advised like that or not, he would have acted according to his own conviction.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr.  Speaker, Sir, if I am permitted to say, that the concentration of my mind is only on the Hon'ble Speaker since the Hon'ble Speaker has come to that room to converse with me, I might have by-passed also the words.

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  Was is not a fact that Mr. Speaker, has reminded you that once you were there you should speak to him as to the Hon'ble Speaker ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- I do pray the House and your pardon.

Mr. Speaker :- It is not the time to pray for a pardon. It is up to the House. If the House asks for your apology, you should asks afterwards.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- To me it means that to this question I have answered. 

Mr. Speaker :- The hon. Member wanted to know whether it is not a fact that a person whom you spoke to was the Speaker himself. Answer Yes or No.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have already replied to this question.

Mr. Speaker :-  You can reply that reply. What do you mean by  saying "Pyndei Kti Pyndei Kjat".

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, Ngam mut ban ong ba u Mr. Speaker, u dei u Speaker hangno hangno.....(interruption).

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  You mean what you mean, but whether the Speaker, reminded you that he was the Speaker himself. Did he not say that Yes or No ? Did not you Speaker to the Speaker by standing yourself as a mark of respect.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, to these questions, I have already answered as I said before.

Mr. Speaker :-  You have answered everything in a hypothetical manner, Now the House wants to get from you a categorical answer.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Not only the Speaker who takes the position as a Speaker and not only the House that I respect, I respect him as my brother also.

Shri D.D. Lapang :- You spoke by standing after the advice was  given to you. Did not you do that ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I kept standing all along since the entrance  of our Hon'ble Speaker.

Mr. Speaker :-  Did not you say that "I speak by standing"

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Yes I have said that.

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  Then Mr. Chyne by standing itself, does not it mean a part of formality.

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, If I am permitted to say the Speaker, never carries the chair anywhere he goes, but still I respect him as my elder brother.

Mr. Speaker :-  It does not mean that the question of friends or elder-brother arises any longer. 

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I respect you not only as a friend or elder brother but also as friend of my own flesh and blood.

Mr. Speaker :-  Do you know, your age that you address me as your elder brother ? Do you know  your own age ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I say about 40.

Mr. Speaker :-  Do you know that in age you older than Prof. R.S. Lyngdoh who happens to be the Speaker ?

Shri Prosperly Chyne :- That I do not know, but I regard you in honour as my elder brother or as my father.

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  Mr. Chyne, having taken you as a highly educated and enlightened person who can very well reply to all the questions in this way that we cannot get the actual reply, should we not take it that you have done so intentionally and not unknowingly ?

Shri P.C. Chyne :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, unintentionally and unknowingly 

Mr. Speaker :-  Any body else. Mr. Chyne you may now leave the House and shall wait outside till the House decides it judgement

Shri Prosperly Chyne :-  Thank you, Mr. Speaker,  Sir,

Mr. Speaker :-  In the meantime the question seems to be a ticklish one and I do not want that the House be disturbed in its deliberations while discussing this affair. I order that the House will sit in secret  and that the gallery be cleared.

        I think there is no use for the microphone also since the House is sitting in secret. You have heard the questions and answers to the questions which the House had conducted in its examination of Mr. Prosperly Chyne. So I leave it to the House now to express its opinion.

        I must remind the House that on Saturday the House has found him guilty of a breach of privilege and my ruling was on what type of punishment to be imposed upon him by the House. That is the point to be discussed today.

Shri Jormanick Syiem :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, his replies are all evasive and they indicate that he did not like even to give a direct reply to the House.

Shri D.D. Lapang :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, as Mr. Jormanick Syiem stated his replies are evasive and he did care to give correct replies to the question put to him. This shows that he is not sincere about what he said. A man who expresses his apology should admit that he was guilty of what he has committed and in that case a pardon can be extended to him. But in this particular case, Shri P.C. Chyne did not admit it in his replies; he has very much twisted the questions which action betrays his insincerity. In this regard, I think the apology submitted by him cannot be accepted and punishment should be given to him as suggested by the hon. Mover, that he should be reprimanded.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, from the replies that Mr. P.C. Chyne gives today it is very clear that he has given contradictory replies. In the first instance, he had mentioned about the feeling of being friendly towards the Hon'ble Speaker as a person. At the same time, he did not deny the fact that he was fully aware all along that you were a Speaker and in the course of the conversation it clearly indicated that he was fully aware of the fact that you were a Speaker. Well, in his replies which are evasive and contradictory, the worst is the attempt to hide the truth. This is a very important mater, an attempt on his part consistently to conceal the truth; this is something which is extraordinary which I think the House cannot take it lightly. I would have pleaded mercy with justice. But somehow, in all the replies he gave, there was not a single reply we found to be an indication of truthfulness. This  matter is very serious, we have to give a punishment which is exemplary. There is one thing in his favour and that thing is that since this is the first time that we are having a case of this nature.

Mr. Speaker :-  May I  remind the House and everybody that this State is new but the privilege of the House is as old as any parliamentary tradition in any part of the country.

Shri P. R. Kyndiah :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, what I am trying to say is that this is the first time since we were in the Autonomous State ; this is the first time that the matter of this nature has come up. In order to safeguard the interest and sanctity of the House. it is my contention to state as to pinpoint that the concealment of the truth on the part of the Mr. Chyne is very very fundamental and the punishment to be given to him should be exemplary.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, already when I initiated the discussion and piloted the consideration of the case, I had also taken the stand that since it was the first offence committed by Mr. P.C. Chyne, I was not inclined to recommend an imprisonment. but because of the fact that it was the first offence I had recommended that he should be reprimanded.

Mr. Speaker :-  The first offence of the person or you mean the first offence of this kind because at some other time when any person commits the same offence, I will not accept it only if you say that this is the first offence of this kind. 

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, this morning while I sat listening to the various questions and replies given by Mr. P.C. Chyne, I was very impressed with one fact, and that is, about his capability; he is also a very good lawyer himself and also a very capable person. he has almost exceeded in earning the sympathy of this House :- (1) by giving evasive replies (2) by fanning the ignorance, he had gone even to the extent of fanning the ignorance of his own mother tongue, Khasi and (3) he has fanned to possess a very short memory. Now, by resorting to this method as correctly pointed out by the hon. Member from Mylliem, he has actually committed another breach of privilege. He has  treated the entire House with contempt, he has under-estimated our intelligence and our understanding and therefore, I agree with the hon. Member from Jaiaw that he should be  given a punishment which will be exemplary and which will be remembered by all the Members and people for all time to come, and it will be a warning to the people who are going to attempt to commit any breach of privilege against this House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I recommend that Mr. P.C. Chyne be imprisoned.

Mr. Speaker :-  Any other Members who would like to express their views ?

Prof. P.G. Marbaniang :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, lat Saturday, we have heard the different arguments on the motion concerning the alleged breach of privilege. I never for a moment would think that Mr. P.C. Chyne would be a very clever person as he appears today. I think he must be one from among those villages though I do not know that the man has read upto B.A. and he seems to be quite a sly person to me by the way he gave his replies.

Mr. Speaker :-  At least the hon. Member should not go to the level of using these words.

Prof. P.G. Marbaniang :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, the way he gave his replies evading the questions, twisting the answer shows that the man knows about law, he knows about the procedure of the court of law. But during his expression, I would remind the house, he said, he is not a lawyer and this shows that he knows about the law and whatever he did on the 29th he must have done it intentionally. Sir, when you entered the lounge, he knew that you were the Speaker immediately, he said, "Be seated" and immediately  he stood up. "We shall be speaking by standing" he said which shows that he knew you were the Speaker. In spite of that, this same person deliberately and intentionally wants to bring down the dignity of the House and the dignity of the Chair by stating about the Adjournment Motion and that the ruling given by you is wrong. Therefore when I have seen the man today here, I am convinced fore, I agree with the mover that punishment for this man should be deterrent and should be severe and I think it must be imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker :-  Any other Member this side ? did he commit a contempt of the Court of Shella or to the Subordinate Court of the District Council I am asking the opinion of the House.

Shri S.D. Khongwir :-  what was the question of the Speaker ?

Mr. Speaker :-  The question was asked by Mr. Maham Singh - did you have an occasion to be the Presiding Officer of the Subordinate Court and have you ever delivered any decision or judgement ? Then he said 'Yes'. Then again, when you decide a caser, if people criticise or challenge your judgement , what would you have done ? To this he said 'I would have just ignored'.

Shri Maham Singh :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, he would not have just ignored but he would have  considered it as "Bein Durbar", that means contempt of court. Mr. Jormanick also knows it. If a man says that, all your judgement is wrong and you are partial, then he has committed 'Bein Durbar'.

Mr. Speaker :-  Then there is only one suggestion as to the type of punishment that it should be exemplary. That was suggested by Mr. Kyndiah and according to Mr. Pugh, to be exemplary in this case is to inflict upon  him the severest punishment that the House can give, that is , imprisonment. This is one suggestion and the other ?

Shri Reidson Momin :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am also one for giving imprisonment to the man. We have seen him, tried him and heard him and I think we should not let him go scot-free. We should consider and take such action to see that in future such incidents will not take place. So in order to safeguard the dignity of the House and the Chair, I think , the exemplary punishment  should be imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker :-  Is it the consensus of the House that this punishment will be the most exemplary and most befitting in such case ? The House must be unanimous on this, being the first case to exert the supremacy of the House and to see that in future no other person would ever come forward to challenge the supremacy of the House and the privileges of the House and the Members.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, although the man has committed a very serious breach of privilege and contempt of the House, since this is the first offence, I think he should only be reprimanded.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- Mr. Speaker, Sir,  on this point, I would like to make some observation. Unfortunately I was not present when the matter was raised. But I have thought, when this matter came up, that the matter is of serious nature because it concerned the prestige and the dignity of the Speaker as well  as of the House. I have thought that it may meet the ends of justice if we just admonish or reprimand him. But then when I saw the person to day before the Bar of the House and when I listened to his replied to various  questions put before him, I have changed my mind and I thought that, as you have correctly said, whatever we do today will be a precedent and a convention. Now supposing or assuming that we just admonish or reprimand in case of this nature or lesser punishment is only given, then the punishment we could give in future will be only admonition or reprimand in such case and it would not be imprisonment. If we are convinced to day, as I said, that the person has tried to conceal the truth consistently or that he had not expressed unqualified apology, I would not be satisfied only to reprimand him. But when I have seen the man and  heard his replies today, I am not convinced  that it is only by awarding the punishment of imprisonment it would meet the ones of justice. There are again various categories of imprisonment like imprisonment for a day and imprisonment right till the prorogation or adjournment of the house. There should be imprisoned for 12 hours or 24 hours for today till tomorrow  rather than to admonish or reprimand him. Therefore, I will recommend  Mr. Speaker, Sir, that imprisonment of a shorter duration should be awarded to him, since this is the first time which had happened in this House. This is the only thing that I can convince myself.

Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have been thinking that I will not say anything more to what I have already said the other day. But since there has been an observation from the Chair that we should have a unanimous decision I would like to say just a few words. Now, about the person of whom we are very much concerned, namely, Mr. Chyne, I have already expressed my views the other day. I do admit and I feel that he has committed a breach of privilege of the House and the Speaker, since he has uttered the word criticising the ruling of the Speaker and also the decision of the House. After we have seen him, heard him and tried him at the Bar of the House, I feel that he did not behave differently from what we have has already said. At the same time the man has attempted twice to tender may be according to  his own understanding but he could not make the one that the House demanded. This morning he said directly that House. For what he has done he has very deeply regretted. Since he has tendered his apology and since it is the first time Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this new august House of our State, I would not say anything more but as the matter was brought and moved before the House and the demand of the Member, was that the person be reprimanded by the House, so I will Mr. Speaker Sir, myself stick to what I have already suggested the other day that he may be reprimanded but the degree how to reprimand him is up to the Chair as the man was already brought before the Bar of the House. So this is my submission.

Shri W.A. Sangma (Chief Minister) :-  I would also like to give my opinion when the hon. Members expressed their opinion on this particular matter. We should be reminded of the kind of behaviour the gentleman has shown before the hon. members at the time when the Press people and the visitors were there in the galleries. I think every one of us including the Press and the people in the galleries might have been convinced that there is no sincere desire on his part to admit his fault and that there is no sincere attempt to tender unconditional apology. To every question put by the hon. Members he tried to evade and argue back. I think the wisdom of the House will be judged by those who have had the occasion to watch the manner in which he behaves and the way he tries to evade very important and pertinent questions. On the first day, when the Motion was brought before the House, Mr. D.D. Pugh and I recommended that the punishment must be reprimand him but today I have changed my mind and that is only because I am convinced that there is no sincere  realisation on his part of his own faults. In fact, even today he was trying indirectly to justify his stand and he was trying to indirectly question the House. When particular and pertinent questions were put by the House, he tried to evade them. He did not want to give direct reply. This does not mean that he does not realise the importance of the problem or the seriousness of the breach of privilege committed by him. He was trying to give a reply this way- "Well, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I have already replied".  The reply which was given earlier was certainly an evasive one. There, in fact, he was trying to argue. Even though he admitted in the first instance of certain facts, yet subsequently when a similar question was put to him to get the direct reply, his answer was - 'I do not remember". He pleaded short memory. But a few minutes earlier he had, infact, given in indirect reply. From this it is clear to the House, to the hon. Members and to you, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that here is a man  who really wants to challenge the ruling of the Speaker and thereby has committed a serious breach of privilege. But he thought that is may be good to avoid all these difficulties by tendering some sort of apology. I can understand, I have watched and I have been listening to the replies given by the gentleman, Mr. Chyne. There has been no occasion on his part to tender sincere and unconditional apology. But he tried his best indirectly to justify his stand. Therefore, it will not meet the ends of justice if he is given the punishment of reprimand. I would like to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member from Jaiaw that the third punishment which is recommended will mean imprisonment from the date till the prorogation of the Session. But I feel that imprisonment should not last to that extent. It is, of course, by giving this punishment, I think, that we shall be able to set an example for future. The watch may have noticed the way he tried to evade the questions and how indirectly he tried to prove that he  was innocent. I think this House would be satisfied that we have been able to do justice, in view of the nature of the breach of privilege which has been committed by Mr. Chyne, if the punishment of imprisonment is awarded  to him and I would request to directly recommend that he should be imprisoned at least for a period of 24 hours.

Prof M.N. Majaw :-  Mr. Speaker,  Sir, I admit this is a very ticklish problem, a very serious matter no doubt. We have thought that it would not be necessary for us to again express our opinion on the matter as we had done. But in view of the fact that the suggestion has come for a consensus of opinion, we would also like to express our opinion. There are three distinct aspects of this case. The first is the offence. Now as far as the offence is concerned, even from the portion of admission  made by  Mr. Chyne, it has been established that there was an offence and it did constitute a breach of privilege of the House and of the Speaker. That has been clearly  established and there is no argument over the matter. Now the second point is his replies to various questions put to him and also his explanation at the start before the questions were put to him. Now, if we were to look at the records or proceedings pertaining to that particular portion of his reply, I am sure, if my memory serves me well, that he did tender an unqualified apology and big pardon. He even used  the word 'mercy' in his original reply. That cannot be denied and I think it is noted down in the proceedings. He had apologised when he admitted the Speaker and he had apologised publicly in the House when this item was taken up in the House. Now, is his apology satisfactory ? Are him replies satisfactory ?

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Majaw let me remind that the summons which I passed on and which was sent to him was not that he should come here to ask apology, but to explain what he has to say about the charges level led against him by the House. Supposing the House decided that it should ask for apology from him, then at that stage, he should come forward. But he was apologising at the time when he was asked questions. 

Prof. M.N. Majaw :-  I draw the attention to the apology only to show the state of his frame of mine or at least the condition of his motives. The action certainly is that there are two opinions about it. There was really a breach of privilege. The third point I would like to raise is that when passing judgement, we should be clear that the punishment to be meted out really meets the ends of justice. There should not be anything of vindictiveness in punishment. Do we meet the end of justice in order to determine whether the punishment proposed meets the ends of justice ? We may also have to look at all that he has said interalia while talking, that he has also apologised. That apology if we accept on its face value is an apology at the start is pretty genuine. In the replies that he gave to the questions put by the hon. Members, certainly I admit that in a number of questions, he has not been able to say yes or no distinctly or clearly. He was in other words evasive. This evasiveness might, I stand corrected, be due to the first experience of this nature for the the person concerned in the House and before the crowded galleries. I wonder how many of us who had the misfortune to stand in the dock before a highly qualified audience would also be able to give exact and definite replies without certain omission of beating around the bush. The point laboured by one of the hon. members that he is a highly educated person all the more adds substance to my argument that the more educated a person is, the deeper an embarrassment he would feel when confronted to such an audience and sometimes it has happened to persons of this nature under such circumstances to try to give evasive answers and unsatisfactory replies. I am not excusing his evasiveness.  I am trying to analyse the type of answers that he gave. Having considered all these, I , as the Leader of the House has pointed  out, will not draw any argument from what the public may think who happened to sit in the galleries or in the Press.  Now we who are here understand what type of punishment to be given to meet the ends of justice taking into consideration the fact that he had apologised and he had also given evasive answers to certain questions. But the  crux of the matter is; did he ever in his  explanation express apology for what he did. I humbly submit that he did express apology both to you and to the hon. Members in this House. Now, having considered all these the matters- the offence, the replies and the explanation given by him and the proposal made for punishment, I feel convinced in my humble opinion that a reprimand from the Chair would suffice to meet the ends of justice.

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Maham Singh.

Shri Maham Singh :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, in this matter we wish to come to a unanimous decision. I think the best way is that we leave to the discretion of the Hon'ble Speaker as to what should be the punishment which will be suitable in this case. Mr. Speaker, Sir, why I say this is because on the day of the occurrence that is on the 29th March, when he made those remarks against the Hon'ble Speaker, we were no present. But actually it can be better judged not only by his words but by his behaviour. On that day how did he behave will show what was his real intention and on that day the Hon'ble Speaker and some other friends were also present. As the Hon'ble Speaker, was present, he would be able to judge at least what was his behaviour and what was the real intention in the utterances of those words which took place in the conversation on the day of the occurrence that is on the 29th March, 1973.

        In this matter the person who committed the offence was also given an opportunity to defend himself. he came here and we are to from out opinion. First I was not satisfied with his first apology letter which he submitted before you. Mr. Speaker, Sir, previously I thought that had he just submitted an apology and had it been a sincere apology. I would have been satisfied or many of us would have been satisfied and we would have spoken also to the Hon'ble  Speaker to let us forgive him. But when I read the letter of apology submitted to the Hon'ble Speaker on that day, I consider that only admonition along would not be sufficient but he should be reprimanded. Now after hearing him the question is  whether he should be reprimanded or he should be imprisoned. We have agreed  that he should be punished but what punishment should be given to him. Now in inflicting punishment it must be decided according to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus we cannot say that this is his first offence which has been committed against the House nor we can say also that this man has been committed against the House nor we can say also that this man has committed this first offence and therefore we may be lenient to him. The punishment should be determined not only by the fact and circumstances  of each case but it should be such which will deter other person also from committing the same offence, i.e., in the particular case of showing disrespect to the honour or dignity of  this House. These are two things which should be borned in mind in giving punishment. In this matter , as I have said, we should come to a unanimous decision. Of course all of us are convinced that he should be either imprisoned or reprimanded. I feel we should leave to the Speaker, to decide as to what punishment should be meted out to him.

Shri B.B. Challam :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, although I have not seen what really happened on 29th March, 1973 but from the nature of the questions put to Mr. P.C.. Chyne and the way he replied give certain impression in my mind. Of course it is true that he begged apology when he realised his wrong. It is good to apologise and it is also a good to show mercy to him, as he prayed for. But sitting from here just opposite to him, Mr. Speaker, Sir, Ii would like to tell the House that I gathered certain impression particularly the way he replied and the very way he behaved and it appeared to me that it seemed he was not giving correct reply and there is a saying that the face indicates the mind. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it appeared to me that he was challenging the House although he begged mercy. That is why I feel that he should be punished as suggested by some of the members. But to me, the question is that why he should be imprisoned only for 12 or 24 hours, why not months together. This is not a life imprisonment not it is a capital punishment. I feel if you punish him with imprisonment for 10 or 24 hours it will not help him in learning a lesson  unless he is imprisoned to the extent of 2 or 3 months. It will also be a lesson for other people who have motive to challenge the prestige of this House so also the hon. Members. Therefore, I recommend that the should be punished with imprisonment for 3 months.

Mr. Speaker :-  That you cannot. Mr. Mawlot, I will not allow you to speak unless you have anything new to say about the punishment.

        First of all before I give my ruling I declare that the sitting will now be no longer in camera. Now the visitors waiting outside may re-enter the gallery. Well I am really in an embarrassing position. I placed  this matter before the House in order that the House would come to a unanimous decision. But I am surprised to find that although the House has found him guilty of gross breach of privilege to which effect the House is in total agreement, I would also add that by this defying attitude this morning he had also committed a breach of privilege against another hon. Member, Mr. H.S. Lyngdoh. Mr. Chyne had committed another breach of privilege by bringing forward a false statement in his letter of apology by stating "Ka pyndei kti pyndei kjat". There was actually no physical fight but he said that it was just like a physical fight. Although he was jumble to the Chair. he was defying the hon. Members who were asking  him questions. I would have made a decision that this person should be imprisoned till  the House prorogues or adjourns. But there are some other considerations. I do not forget my human feeling and at the same time I do not forget the prestige of the Chair which is magnanimous. I ignored his remarks on that day but since there was something in his remarks which affected not only the Speaker, in the House but also the hon. Members I could not let the matter end there. I am in entire agreement with the observations of the hon. Members that punishment should be commensurate with the offence that he has committed. Is it the sense of the House that Mr. P.C. Chyne be reprimanded today itself at the Bar of the House. ?

(Voice - Yes, Yes)

        Now, I direct the Marshal and the Watch and Ward Staff to declare the galleries open so that Mr. Chyne can be reprimanded here at the Bar of the House right now.

        Now, the House will exert its authority and supremacy in the State and once again, I remind the House that all Members should observe complete silence at the time when Mr. Prosperly Chyne is reprimanded.

        (The Marshal conducted Mr. P.C. Chyne to the Bar of the House)

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Prosperly Chyne, the House has charged you guilty of committing a gross breach of privilege by adversely remarking against the ruling of the Hon'ble Speaker, delivered to this august House on the 28th March, 1973, in the Members' Lounge on the 29th March, 1973 in the presence of a few other respectable gentlemen. in the name of the House, I accordingly reprimand you for committing a gross breach of privilege of the House. Now you must bow down to the Chair, to the Ruling Party (Mr. P.C. Chyne bowed down to the Ruling Party) and to the Opposition Party (Mr. P.C. Chyne bowed down to the Opposition Party).

        Now, I direct you to withdraw.

        (Mr. P.C.. Chyne withdraw from the House)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

            Now,  let us come to item No. 16 of today's list of business. Mr. D.D. Pugh Member of the Privilege Committee, will please move his motion.

Shri D.D. Pugh :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the first Report of the Committee of the Privilege presented in the House on the 6th December, 1972 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :-  Motion moved and now I put the question before the House. The questions is that report (No.1) of the Privilege Committee be taken into consideration.

(Voice - Yes)

        (The Speaker, left the Chamber and Shri D.D. Lapang, Chairman took the Chair)

Shri D.D. Pugh :-  Mr. Chairman, Sir, the first report of the Committee of Privileges which is now under the consideration of the House as the hon. Members know, relates to the privilege motion moved by the Hon. Member from Mawhati against "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum". This particular matter, Mr. Chairman, Sir, has been with the Privileges Committee for just a little 4  months  today, to be a little more precise, I would say that the Committee was seized of this problem for 133 days, that is from the 6th of April, 1972 , the date on which the Hon'ble Speaker, of the House referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges till the 17th August; 1972 when the Committee finalised its report. The report as the hon. Members know was presented to this Assembly on the 6th December, 1972. I believe that the Committee's findings and recommendations are quite clear and therefore, Mr. Chairman, Sir, do not consider it necessary to say very much. However, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I do not consider it necessary to say very much. However, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity with the intention to facilitate an expeditious disposal of the matter to emphasize one or two facts. The first fact I would  like to emphasize is that a careful examination of the complaint shows that the entire case hinges on  the correctness of the translation made by the hon. complainant. We, as the Committee, Mr. Chairman, Sir, as has been stated in the report, tested the correctness or otherwise of the said translation in several ways.

        No. 1, we as Committee Members sent the Khasi extract of the newspaper report together with the translation which had been prepared by one of the Members of the Committee to 8 persons, Those 8 persons were Mr. S.J. Duncan,  Mr. D.S. Khongdup,  Mr. P. Gatphoh,  Mr. H. Ropmay, Mr. C. Wolflang, Mrs. Alvareen Than, Mr. V.G. Bareh of St. Anthony's College and Mr. B.R. Kharlukhi. The second thing that we did was to send only the Khasi extract to 4 persons - they were Rev.e Fr. Sngi, Reve. W. Manners. Mr. A.S. Khongphai and Reve. H.M. Rapthap, Principal of Theological College Cherrapunjee. The third thing that we did in order to test the correctness or otherwise of the translation was to send the Khasi extract together with the translation that had been made and submitted by the hon. complainant to 5 persons. The five persons were - Mrs. Helen Giri, Mr. S. Swer, Mr. R. J. Khongwir, Mr. E.M. Sohkhlet, Mr. L. Tham who is now residing at Malki, previously he was a the Headmaster of the Jowai Government High School. I have made this rather lengthy statement to show the manner in which we were testing the correctness of the translation with the intention to show that the Committee had consulted 17 different people who are expected to know both the English and the Khasi language, and in fact, Mr. Chairman, Sir, that only 13 out of the 17 persons to whom we have written for their advice have responded. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Committee of Privileges has gone into the matter as thoroughly as carefully and as meticulously  as possible. In fact what I would like to emphasise, Mr. Chairman, Sir, is the fact contained in paragraph 10 of the Report, at page 2. I would like to read the relevant portion, on the basis of these translations, the Committee found that in nor translation (except the one submitted by Prof. Majaw). have the words 'unjustified' and 'undignified' been used. This is a fact, Mr. Chairman, Sir, that I wish to emphasise with all the emphasis at my command. With these few words, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I commend the report for acceptance of the House.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :-  Mr. Chairman, Sir, I must confess at the very outset that there is no exact meaning by which one can translate from one language into another in such a way so as to bring out the exact words used. It is easier to explain the word used in  one language with other words of the same language than to give an exact translation from one language into another. Even in the same language no two word which are similar are exactly identical in manner and purport. Now very often when translating, it is not so much the literal translation of the word used that has really a bearing in the  matter, rather the intention or general connotation of the group of words used and the context. These are borne in mind usually when translating. Now the words used in the Khasi language in the Newspaper of the "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum", are the two words to which offence was taken not only by me, but by two other hon. Members of the House one of whom has been yourself, Mr. Chairman, Sir. These two words "Jingkaw kaw" and "Jingpynwit" have been variously translated in the replies given by the persons as mentioned by the Hon. Minister, who complied to the request from the Privileges Committee. Some have referred to it as 'humbug' some as 'noise' 'noisy' some as 'chatter' some as 'clamour' and some body else as 'row'. Now the mere fact that various words have been used in the English language to give the translation of Khasi words "jingkaw  kaw bad Jingpynwit", to my mind, appears to be not possible in one single words to give the exact translation of the words. But the general connotation of the words 'Jingkaw kaw and Jingpynwit", if you add all the words -namely- row, noise, noisy, chatter, humbug, clamour, tumult also used by Mr. V.G. Bareh,, the sum total of them al in English language I think justifies the use of the word useless, unjustified, undignified. For the hon. Members to create a tumult in the House at the time when the Acting Speaker has taken up the first part of the agenda, it would certainly be unjustified, undignified and useless chatter on the part of the hon. Members to create a row as translated by Rev. Rapthap and so certainly, it would be useless for the hon. Members to create clamour and humbug when the acting Speaker, has  taken up the first part of the Agenda. So I humbly submit that though no one can give the translation of the word unjustified, undignified and useless yet the connotation is there. If we take the sum total of the meaning of al the words used by the great authorities pointed out by the Hon. Minister, that is, row, noise, noisy, clamour, chatter, humbug, tumult; all these taken together would certainly be undignified. Unjustified and useless. So I submit that had the hon. Member, myself committed such tumult or brought about tumult and brought about, row, clamour and noisy chatter it is certainly undignified and unjustified. But since I did not nor yourself, Mr. Chairman, Sir, not the hon. Member from Nongkhlaw and since neither of us did anything of the three things which are undignified nor we had been unjustified nor useless. I submit that my translation is correct and the statement of the newspaper "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum" is unfounded, false and unjustified because it is not a statement of facts. The fact is that neither I nor you, Mr. Chairman, Sir, nor the hon. Member from Nongkhlaw had created a tumult, a rouse, a clamour and humbug nor we had created a noisy chatter. Therefore, the statement of the newspaper in question is certainly false. Now, whether the false statement concerning persons of the House constitutes a breach of privilege, that is the question. I have laboured to prove that the statement made by the newspaper is false and if it is false, does it constitute a breach of privilege ? I submit it does because no reflection can be passed upon the hon. Members conducting their duties nor upon the House. Besides Mr. Chairman, Sir, there is an indirect reflection on the Acting Speaker as being unable to conduct the proceedings of the House because of a tumult, a rouse, a clamour, a humbug and noisy chatter and the disturbance which has been created by me, yourself Mr. Chairman, Sir, and the hon. Member from Nongkhlaw. Because of this there is a reflection upon the ability or efficiency of the Acting Speaker to conduct the business of the House. It is really a very serious and grave matter not to be lightly looked at. I do not claim to be the authority neither in English language not in Khasi language but I will only utilise the translation give by the Privileges Committee and very strongly supported by the Hon. Minister. This translation without turning to my own translation., I do submit that if there was a rouse, I am talking of the translation supported and defended by the Hon. Minister, if the words, noisy, chatter, clamour, tumult, humbug and the disturbances created by myself, yourself  Mr. Chairman Sir, and the hon. Member from Nongkhlaw then certainly it would have amounted to showing disrespect to the Chair. That particular news-item states that the Acting Speaker, Mr. Jormanick Syiem had taken up the business, the first business on the agenda not this being a wrong statement, it is also a reflection not only upon our humble self-including myself and even you Mr. Chairman, Sir, had been accused by this news item and also upon the Acting Speaker, who was conducting the business of the House on that day. Therefore, I submit that there is a definite breach of privilege and  and the matter should not be dropped.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah (Jaiaw S.T.) :- Mr. Chairman , Sir, I would like to make a brief observation on the report of the Privilege Committee on this very important matter. Now  the Committee had gone into this matter very thoroughly and in depth and they come to certain conclusion which I think is not a light-finding. I t is a finding based on certain basic facts. I think Mr. Chairman, Sir, the whole case depends on the correct translation of Prof. M.N. Majaw on the news item appearing in the "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum". Even the translation as correctly said there may be difficulty in making translation word by word or proper translation. I do agree with Prof. M.N. Majaw that we have to take into consideration the connotation but there is a point which I like to pin-point here in regard to the  translation by Prof. M.N. Majaw, M.L.A. which appeared on the day we took up this matter and that is the word 'dignity'. Here in this House we are concerned, mostly with the dignity and prestige of the House. The translation of Prof. M.N. Majaw has put in the word 'undignified'. Now, the Committee while going into the whole matter had come to the conclusion that nowhere in the translation submitted by 13 gentlemen, also there are also gentle-ladies who had given their translation and who are more or less the authority of the Khasi language the word undignified was used. Here is a question whether you accept the translation as submitted by Prof. M.N. Majaw or you take the translation as given by the 13 persons (interruption)

Prof. M.N. Majaw :-  On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, Sir, on my argument I wish the Hon. Speaker will reply. Mr. part of argument is that the sum total meaning of these words would certainly be undignified, created, arouse, created a clamour, a humbug, and created a disturbances and created a rouse especially.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :-  That is an explanation. My point is that we agree to take this matter to the Privileges Committee which is precisely because of the word 'undignified.'. I would have been the first person to oppose referring this matte to the Committee of Privileges if the word 'undignified' was not there. We have to depend on the translation of Prof. M.N. Majaw.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :-  Then you should support it.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :-  That is your explanation and your statement but nowhere the word 'undignified' appeared. My submission, Mr. Chairman, Sir, is that since in all the 13 translations the word 'undignified had not appeared, I feel  that the contention of my hon. friend. Prof. M.N. Majaw, cannot be accepted. Therefore, on this point along I feel that the report of the Committee has been very well done and also the Committee have come to unanimous decision and that there is no prima-facie case of breach of privilege, I, therefore, support the report of the Committee.

        (The Speaker, occupied the Chamber)

Shri H.E. Pohshna  (Nongtalang S.T.) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was not a good  vernacular student. There is this privilege motion which has been moved rather with regard to the report of the Privilege Committee at least I am grateful to them that they have mentioned that they have put in here all the respective interpretations and translations that had been made such as noise, disturbance, noisy interruptions, tumult and clamour, and so on and so  forth. Therefore, as the hon. Member who has just spoken has said that there is nothing undignified in all these translations. I do not know Sir, whether I misunderstand the argument or not but it appears that the hon. Member who has just spoken appears to have admitted that it is dignified to have a row, disturbance, golmal and everything in the House. but so far as we are concerned to have such disturbances and any of the kind of disturbance is unparliamentary, the people who have made the translations did not confine to a definite translation. This disturbance from that very fact, as pointed out by the mover of the motion, has not been defined. If you come to the 'disturbance' it may mean many things and it may mean some fight here. Interruption and disturbance are not parliamentary and you always disallow us Mr. Speaker, Sir, and when we come to disturbance it may mean golmal. Really, Sir, I do not see that this translation that the hon. Member from Mawhati has made is wrong Actually Sir...

Mr. Speaker :-  Mr. Pohshna you must remember that No.1 when you take up the floor to speak I would request you to go and rinse your mouth. I mean that is a part of good manners inside the House and secondly, it appears that the submission made by the hon. Member is about the findings of the Privilege Committee and to challenge the translations which have been sent to and made by the various persons who are more or less looked upon to have some authority over the language. Whether you say that the translation is wrong or right is not the point. But the question is that whether this very report is a clear picture of the fact that the report in the paper "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum" has reflected upon the privilege of the Member and the privilege of the House. There are some languages which the people can use freely outside the House, which are welcomed by the people but there are some words which may not be allowed inside the House. whether the words are unparliamentary or not, that does not come in the matter of privilege.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :-  Thank you, Sir. It  is a fact, Sir, that according to the translation not a single word was used to translate "Jingkaw-kaw' Some have said 'noisy', some have said 'disturbance' and some have used the word 'row' or hubbub' and some used the word 'Golmal' and so on and so forth. Therefore, it appears that the word  'Jingkaw-kaw' is really very difficult for all the  people who are in the literary class of our District and when they have been given the chance to translate into English the word 'Jing-kaw' none of them agree as to what is this word Jingkaw-kaw. Of course, I do not know whether the editor of "ka Pyrta U Riewlum" had been asked to translate the word.

Mr. Speaker :-  He is an accused, How can you rely on him when the privilege Committee was taking up the evidences from various people ?

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Yes, Sir. Therefore, in my opinion, it appears that only the translation of the mover of the motion is the summing up of all this various translations that have been done. It appears that the mover of the motion has different ideas from those made in the translation.

Mr. Speaker :-  I don't understand why do you blame the mover of the motion ? this has been referred to the Committee and you should refer to the Committee and not to the mover of the motion alone.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Then I come to the Committee, Sir. It appears that in the Committee itself there was difference of opinion before they come to a decision.

Mr. Speaker :-   I rule it out because I have not seen any note of dissent.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- I am coming to that, Sir. Why have they sent to others for a translation. It is a fact that they themselves as members of the Privileges Committees can give their own translation. I am not affecting the prestige of the Privileges Committee, but they are at a fix to know what is the actual translation of this word 'Jingkaw-kaw'. 

Mr. Speaker :- Where did you find that ? You must discuss the report. Where did they say that they were in a fix ?

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- They didn't say but they have written to eight persons.

Mr. Speaker :-   That is your conclusion. Read the Report Mr. Pohshna and discuss the report as it is.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Therefore, Sir, in their letter to have various persons they have written like this : "I shall be grateful to you kindly take the trouble in going through the extract of the newspapers report, both Khasi and English translation and forward your valuable opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the English translation of the news report  in Khasi on or before the 5th of June, 1972". I have read all the translations and here only at page 8 it said "the newspaper report is not a correct and faithful translation of the Khasi version stated in your letter". But he didn't make his own translation.

Mr. Speaker :-  Why call a person who didn't dare to give his translation.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :-  Because here the report of the Committees has been based.

Mr. Speaker :-  Did you appear before the Committee to submit your argument ? You didn't have a chance to appear before the Committee ?

Shri H.E. Pohshna :- Only one minute Mr. Speaker, Sir, of all the people and gentlemen who have given their translations, only one of them has said that it is not a correct translation, rather they have given their own translation of the word. Therefore, in my opinion, I do not agree with the report of the Privilege Committee.

Shri Jormanik Syiem :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member has not replied to the question put to him by the Chair.

Mr. Speaker :-  I asked him whether he had the opportunity to appear before the Privilege Committee. I must remind the House that privilege matters are referred to the Committee with a view to enabling the Members of this House to guide and help the Committee outside the sitting of the House because the House is pre-occupied with other business. But if the House thinks that we should take up privilege matters right from the beginning then right from  that time we have to discuss them in this House. But that is no a correct procedure. Now, to come and criticise why the Privilege Committee did that and did this, I think it is unfair Mr. Pohshna.

Shri H.E. Pohshna :-   Then Sir, I would  request the Privilege Committee to re-examine the matter.

Mr. Speaker :-  Any other Member would like to speak on this ? Now I request Mr. D.D. Pugh to reply to the questions raised.

Shri Darwin D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- Mr. Speaker,  Sir, as stated earlier, while placing the matter before the House, the crux of the matter lies with the correctness or otherwise of the translation. I just want to say that by way of reminder and now by way if reply. I would  immediately say that I agree with the hon. Member from Mawhati, I agree with him wholeheartedly and I agree hundred per cent with him when he said that it is difficult to translate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to go a step further and say that it is my contention that it is not only difficult, but it is extremely difficult and that it is almost impossible to translate. When I say that it is extremely difficult, I would like to give one example. As a young man studying in College in Allahabad, I had an opportunity of going through one of the translations of a very simple statement made in Hindi. The Hindi sentence was "Mera Shir Chakar a raha hai", and the translation given was : "My head is eating..........."and of course Mr. Speaker, Sir, my colleague and my fellow student who made that translation got a big fat zero for the sort of translation. A moment ago, I said that it is almost impossible to translate because it is my contention that only a genius who can translate, a genius who knows both the the languages, the language in which the original passage is given add the language into which the original passage is to be translated. Talking of genius and genii, my mind goes back to a book I read which was originally written in Dutch. the name of this book is "Fear and Trembling". It is a master-piece, but that master-piece was produced by a person who knew Dutch better as a Dutch and knew English better as an Englishmen. So in my opinion , to really translate just to give the meaning, I say Mr. Speaker, Sir, is almost impossible because  to my mind, translation means expressing the truth with fidelity. The statement or the idea contained in the passage to be translated and this truth to which the hon. Member from Mawhati has alluded is as such applicable to him as it is to me or anyone else. Therefore, it is my contention that at this stage as we learn from the report, to choose the words that have been used by 13 persons who had been consulted by us, we cannot get a correct translation from these words. As has been emphasized by the hon. Member from Jaiaw that not a single person who was consulted has given any slightest indication that the elements of being 'undignified', unjustified' are involved in the Khasi newspaper item appearing in "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum", Therefore, after a lot of deliberations for many many hours and after very meticulously and thoroughly gone into the problems, a unanimous decision was arrived at. Therefore, I re-emphasize that the unanimous decision of the Privilege Committee be recommended to this august House and this matter be dropped. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also like to suggest that the report be adopted at this stage itself. 

Prof. Marin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, after listening to all discussions and deliberations, I think it is a sufficient warning to the news papers and other to understand the seriousness of misusing or words if it does occur and therefore, I graciously accept the Privilege Committee's report.

Mr. Speaker :- Now Mr. D.D. Pugh, Member of the Privilege Committee, to move that the report of the Committee on Privilege on a complaint against "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum" be adopted by this House and the matter be dropped by the House.

Shri Darwin D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that this House adopts the report of the Committee on Privilege.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I, put the question before the House. The question is that Report No. 1 of the Committee of Privileges on a matter relating to a complaint against "Ka Pyrta U Riewlum" by Prof. M.N. Majaw,, M.L.A. be adopted by this House and the matter be dropped. The motion is carried and the report is adopted. Now let us pass on to item No.17 Mr. D.D. Pugh Member of the Privilege Committee to move that Report No. 2, of the Committee of Privilege be taken into consideration.

Shri Darwin D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- (Member, Privileges Committee) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Second Report of the Privileges Committee presented to the House on 29th March, 1972 be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. I put the question before the House. The question is that Report No. 2 of the Privileges Committees relating to a complaint of breach of privilege moved by Sarvashri S.D. Khongwir and Hoover Hynniewta, M.L.A.s against Prof. Kapila Chatterjee, the Editor, Publisher and Printer of "Young India," be taken into consideration. (The Motion was adopted)

Shri Darwin D. Pugh (Minister of State, Education) :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, Report No. 2 of the Committee of the Privileges which is now under consideration of the House pertains to the Privilege motion against Prof. Kapila Chatterjee, Editor Publisher and Printer of the English weekly "Young India". As the House knows fully well, the complaints were lodged by two hon. Members of this House, viz, Mr. S.D. Khongwir and Mr. Hoover Hynniewta. The Committee sat as many as a seven times to consider the matter referred to it by the hon'ble Speaker, in which I have causes to show that in this case the Committee have worked more thoroughly that it did in the case of the first Privileges motion that was referred to it because in the first instance, we had sat 5 (five) times while in his case. 7 times. The report also is more comprehensive and therefore, I consider that it is not necessary for me to add anything to what has already been stated in the report. However, I would like only to re-emphasise the fact that we have gone into this case thoroughly and carefully and that the Committee, here has found the said Prof. Kapila Chatterjee, Editor, Publisher and Printer of "Young India", guilty of a breach of privilege and punishment to be inflicted also has been recommended at page (3).

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is indeed a privileged day in which we have taken up one privilege issue after another but I think the most serious of the issues that have come out before this House is this wherein a person of professional status had been found guilty of the following charges by the Privileges Committee. "The Committee, I am quoting, "is of a very definite opinion that the Editor concerned has intentionally sought to a malign the Assembly, its Members in general and the hon. Members, Shri S.D. Khongwir and Shri Hoover Hynniewta, in particular by causing the said article and editorial to be published. As such the Committee  has found him guilty of the charges leveled against him by the two hon. Members" In other words, the Committee, is convinced that the Editor is guilty of having committee a breach of privilege, and therefore, 'recommends to the House to reprimand the Editor concerned before  the Bar of the House". Mr. Speaker, Sir, now the fact has been established, the mater has been gone into threadbare and the Editor has been found guilty of that particular writing. In a matter like this, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would have though that when the accused was given a chance or an opportunity to make an apology for whatever he had committed..

Mr. Speaker :-  I am sorry to disturb you Mr. Majaw, I would request at this time that every hon. Member should be attentive and not read any newspaper while some other hon. Member is speaking.

Shri P.R. Kyndiah :- But it is connected with this discussion.

Prof. Martin Narayan Majaw :-  In this particular case I will try to show Mr. Speaker, Sir, that when an opportunity was given to the person  who is accused or even having given him an opportunity for his giving a explanation, as a very special case, we have given him this opportunity with regard to his status in society, his profession as an editor and also as a professor and journalist. But when he was given this opportunity, he has been allow to give a reply in which there is no appearance at all of  his using the  word 'apology'. I have gone through his long reply very carefully  but instead of apologising, he has defended his own views and action. If he would have apologised there might have been specific grounds for showing mercy or compassion to a person who perhaps wrote in the heat of the moment or was carried away by emotion or passion. In spite of the fact of his having been found guilty and being called to reason, he has written in black and white just to justify his offences.  If I may be allowed to quote, with regard to the offensive, words he had used, he said "This is my way of writing", he even went further and, still worse and said that he is in the habit of using very strong language. He said, 'I admit that this strong language on any issue is my personal habit in all my writings which I cannot help but malign the dignity of this august House which I think included yourself Mr. Speaker, Sir, He had clearly  stated that he cannot help but malign  the dignity of the house and attack the members of the House. He said,  I direct "my wrath" but only against in his habit of writing or talking which he cannot help but cast a reflection on the House. He had also referred to the bark of wild animals by which he notably meant dogs. It is his way of talking that the  M.L.As  are dogs but regarding the heading "the bark of Ignorant Mischievous Politicians" he said that the words should not be used in a figurative sense. I therefore, submit Mr. Speaker Sir, that we are not taking it in a figurative sense, as he had said, but in the real sense of the term. And because we take this in its real sense, I would remind the House that just a moment ago we had the occasion to witness how the House exerted and exercised its supremacy. If we take him by his words i.e., the figurative sense, it means that all the M.L.As are dogs and their voices are like barking of Ignorant and Mischievous Politicians. He even went to the extent of saying that the members of the Privileges Committees had made a mistake. He said, "Please do not read such wrong ideas". He had further insulted and criticised the decision of the Privileges committee had made a mistake. He said, "Please do not read such wrong ideas." He had further insulted and criticised the decision of the Privileges Committee  by saying that the Members of the Privileges Committees by saying that the members of Privileges Committee are foolish and unintelligent, not able to read English, not able to read meanings in English, and so he said " Do not read such wrong ideas" and that this is apart of 'his journalese and not literal Queen's English". Again , he said that the statement made by Shri Hoover Hynniewta,  the hon. Member from Nongkhlaw, according to him , had been correctly reported by him, in other words, he has defended his article, he said " I can not be accused of having made a wrong report on the Member's speech". In other words, his writing is against the hon. Member of this House and he had criticised the decision of this House in the discussions on the transfer of land from tribals to the non-tribals. In other words, this report is a report which states that the hon. Members and the House were unjustified in taking a decision and in discussing about the transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals. He has even called in question the authority of the House to pass such a legislation or to justify such a legislation. He says that he has made a correct report of what had happened. He says "I have every right as a citizen of India to raise my voice against the Transfer of Land Act". It seems there is nothing insulting to write or even to criticise an Act passed by the legislature and also in the use of language. To do this perhaps he thinks that it is the basic function of a free press in  a free democracy. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that there are various kind of freedom and there can be no freedom and liberty without law as we have learnt in our schools and in college. But the accused has conveniently forgotten that the liberty is bounded and curtailed by law. He called it a basic function of a free press in a free democracy. I wonder what would happen to him if his own son or family calls him a barking ignorant professor or editor, and if they say that he is a very ignorant, mischievous and useless  professor. He further defined the very use of words : "I have every right to use this English word" Then where is the word of apology ? There is no word of apology at all.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols -Roy (Minister, Industries) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, to have a correct assessment may I request the hon. Member to see to the ending paragraph at page 17 where he had asked pardon.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- There is, of course, something about pardon but the pardon he has asked for is conditional. It is not unconditional. He  has said , "I ask their pardon if my writings have hurt their  personal feelings". He has asked  pardon if their feelings have been hurt but he is  not sorry for what he has done. It amounts to that. "This is my way of speaking", he says, "I have spoken roughly and if it hurts your feelings I am sorry for it". But I have the right to use this English word and I will continue to write like that. I cannot help writing like that". This is the only  note of pardon. It is a kind of sympathetic pardon for the sensitivity of the Members. Their feelings have been hurt and I am sorry for their sensitivity.

Mr. Speaker :-  Then what is your submission 

Prof. M.N. Majaw :-  I was coming to my submission. But as the matter is very grave, it has to be dealt with at length from accusation to punishment. The Privilege Committee has established guilt and has come to the finding that he has committed a breach of privilege and that he has intentionally sought to malign the Members of the House. He is accused of having committed an act and that too with a motive. So, I submit as far as the punishment is concerned, Sir, that it should be an exemplary one and to met the ends of justice it should be imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker :-  Any other hon. Member ?

Shri Francis K. Mawlot :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would also like to say a few words. As the hon. Member has just now pointed out, the editor, publisher and printer of this paper is of the opinion that it is his way of writing and he cannot help it which shows that the man does not feel anything about it. In other words, he is blaming not only the particular Members but the whole House itself. My submission in this, Mr. Speaker, Sir, is that the man, it appears, has not made or shown any regret. He has not understood that he has committed a mistake, rather he takes the view that he is sorry if it hurts the feelings of the Members. So, my feelings is that this man should be imprisoned till the House is prorogued.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries ) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to add one thing for the record of this house because we are dealing here with a very important matter which is essential for the freedom of the press in a democracy. This House, I am sure, is not objecting to criticism of acts of the Government but that it is upholding the dignity of the method in which such criticism is allowed in a free society. I would be fully convinced if the attitude of the Editor concerned as stated by the hon. Member, Professor Majaw, was really to follow the words of the famous Joseph Pulitzer whom he has quoted. If he has really followed the spirit of his words, I am sure that he would not have been brought to the Privilege Committee or anything of the sort. It is said that the member of the Press in a free democracy would not have to be brought before the House and I would only raise my voice just to emphasise what we stand for. We are not against criticism, which is constructive, of the actions of the Members of the House, if the criticism is done in a proper manner and with the proper language to uphold not ourselves as individual but the highest temple of democracy which this House represents.

Mr. Speaker :- We should remember that the Press has its own freedom and that the Legislature of the State should not be over sensitive on any correct representation concerning the Assembly and its members. They should not be over sensitive on any constructive criticisms but at the same time the Press must also remember that it is their duty to uphold the dignity and the authority of the Legislature. The close cooperation between the Legislature and the Press is always essential  for the successful working of a democracy especially in a parliamentary democracy. But the working of a democracy especially in a a parliamentary democracy. But the privilege of the House should not be infringed by any of the members of the Press. Here there is no second opinion about the fact that the editor, publisher and printer of "Young India", Prof. Kapila Chatterjee, has  committed a serious breach of privilege against the House. However, there is a difference of opinion as to the nature of punishment to be meted out to him. This Committee is of the opinion that since this is the first case  (of course now it becomes the second)  the punishment recommended would meet the ends of justice and that he must be reprimanded. But there is no consensus of opinion that the punishment should be more severe than what has been recommended. The maximum punishment which the House can inflict upon any person is imprisonment and I think it will be better if the House would come to a unanimous decision in this regard so that there can be no mistake on the part of any of the Members of the House as well as of the members of the Press.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- May I propose a via media Mr. Speaker, Sir, ? in view of the fact that he has been guilty and in view of that fact that he has stated that in all my writing I cannot help writing like this, may I humbly suggest as a via media that this paper be banned by this august House. Let us know the opinion of the House.

Mr. Speaker :- Do you mean that the House should recommend to the Government to ban this paper ?

Shri B.B. Shallam :- I strongly support the via-media proposal given by Prof. M.N. Majaw.

Mr. Speaker :- You mean in addition to reprimand.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Certainly Mr. Speaker, Sir, Reprimand must be there since there are three very notable things which came out in his reply. He has spoken of the gross ignorance of this House.

Mr. Speaker :-  The House must remember that according to the practice of the Legislature we cannot inflict two punishments at the same time. One punishment can be inflicted and after that if the person commits another breach of privilege we can inflict another punishment. That is the practice in the State Legislatures in the Country.

Shri F. K. Mawlot :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, may we clarify the point, i.e. when the editor will be  reprimanded can we not ban his paper also ?

Mr. Speaker :-  Reprimand is the punishment and after a person is reprimanded, he commits another breach of privilege again, that will have a greater impact on the House and the House must again consider after that what type of punishment should be meted out to him.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- If that is the case Mr. Speaker, Sir, then we will start banning of the paper to put a complete stop of it so that the house can devote more time in other privilege issues.

Shri D.D. Pugh :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, you have yourself stated that it is not for this House to decide to ban this paper. What the House can do it to recommend the banning of the paper to the Government.

Mr. Speaker :-  We cannot inflict two types of punishment at the same time.

Shri S.D.D. Nichols Roy (Minister, Industries) :- Mr. Speaker,  Sir, may I inform that according to the rules there are three form of  punishment. Admonition, reprimand and imprisonment. If the recommendation of the member from Mawhati is taken this has become within the purview of that rule.

Mr. Speaker :-  It must come in the form of a Motion.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- So I move Mr. Speaker, Sir, for the consideration of the House that "Young India" edited , printed and published by Prof. Kapila Chatterjee should be recommended to the Government to be banned.

Mr. Speaker :-  Prof. Majaw you have come too hastily to the Motion. We are still to dispose of this report of the Privilege Committee. Only after this matter is disposed of your can come forward with the motion. Let us first dispose of the report.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State for Education, Member Privilege Committee) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, it seems that no other hon. Member of the House has anything else to say and since I cannot ask you, to wind up the debate I shall not even make an attempt to either wind up the debate or give a reply as I consider it uncalled for. I only take this opportunity of commending the report for the acceptance of the House.

Mr. Speaker :- Is it the sense of the House that this report be adopted now ? Voices - Yes) So Mr. Pugh will please move his motion.

Shri D.D. Pugh (Minister of State for Education, Member Privilege Committee) :-  Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that report No. 2 of the Privileges Committee be adopted by this House.

Mr. Speaker :- Motion moved. Now I put the question before the House. The question is that repot No. 2 of the Privileges Committee be adopted by this House. (the motion was adopted by voice vote). Now I will take the necessary steps to summon Prof. Kapila Chatterjee to appear before the Bar of the House on the 4th April, 1973 to carry out the sentence pronounced upon him by the house. Now let us pass on  to the last item of today's list of business.

        (At this stage the Speaker left the Chamber and the Deputy Speaker, occupied the Chair)

Discussion under Rule 50

Mr. Deputy Speaker :-  May I request Prof. Majaw to raise the discussion under Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Assembly supported by Shri H. Enowell Pohshna, and Shri Humphrey Hadem, on a definite matter of urgent public importance regarding the serious clash between the Police and the Nagas living in Shillong on the 25th March 1973.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :-   Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to bring to the notice of the House by means of Rule 50 a very serious matter that took place on the 25th of this month in which a large number of persons were injured and a large number of them were arrested. Now while doing so Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the persons involved in this incident belong to the well-known  tribe of the North East you will kindly allow me to use the name of the tribe because it has already appeared in the order paper and is germane and pertaining to the discussion. May I have your permission on this Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir ?

Mr. Deputy Speaker :-  Yes.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :- Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Now, we all know very well that the Nagas occupy a very important part in this great country and we also know very well that situated as they are on the boundaries of this country, they also play a very important role as the sentinels of democracy. They have marched in common with all the other Hill Tribes in the spirit of the individual, for the love that the individual has to uphold liberty a social way of life which is confined to our Hills which is very zealously protected. They have come down through the centuries from among the fore fathers of the racial origin, the Mongoloid origin, which is found in most of us in the North East among the Hill Tribes. I am very perturbed Mr. Deputy  Speaker, Sir, to have to bring this matter here before the House and I was very very upset when this unfortunate incident took place on the 25th. According to the facts known to us a particular Film name. "Yegulistan Hamara" was being screened in a local cinema here in Shillong. Now it is a fact which we have established from independent sources that there are certain very offensive portions in the film which are particularly offensive to the Naga people. First of all all the use of Naga names like Ao, Angami and Sekreni. These are the words which would have a particular taboo in particular usage. First of all, the use of the names Sekreni which is not applied to a female name. But it has been applied to a female and the word Ao is the name of a tribe and this is used as a per a criminal, as being uneducated, illiterate, backward and everything in a very derogatory manner. Besides the use of Nagami was with the intention of the film to malign the Naga people in general and the tribals in particular. Of course due to lack of knowledge many film producers, with their smothering knowledge, are trying- they use to say little learning is very dangerous- the film does not show all the characteristics, the clothes, worn by the Naga tribes but in the reference to the Nagas and also in other circumstances even in the film it has been established beyond doubt that whatever might have been the motive of the producer, the fact remains that this has hurt the feelings  and sentiment of the Naga people. Now it would have been objectionable had this happened  to any other race. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, when a certain film produced at Calcutta purporting the life of the people of Calcutta, the Government of India banned that film and virtually they refused the film to be shown anywhere in the country. Further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the B.B.C. brought in it television particular unpleasant aspect of this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :-  But Mr. Majaw your point is to discuss the clash between the Police and the Nagas.

Prof. M.N. Majaw :-  I am trying to explain why there was a clash. Unless there was some ground for a clash, there would have been no clash. We all know from our experience that the Naga people do not interferer in the social and political life of other race. Those who come to Shillong, come here for personal reason, most of them to study and they try consciously to abstain from any interference whatsoever in our economic and social life and they also expect others to do likewise to them. This is one of the reasons why they earn respect not only from the people here but from  the people of India as a whole. Now for such persons who are very respectful towards our way of life whatever happened there must be some ground for such a clash. I tried to find out the source of incident that took place. Now even concern like B.B.C. brought out a television programme which was banned by the Parliament although hit was a fact. It was alleged that it has shown a distorted picture of India, it has shown only the bad side. So also the film 'Oh Calcutta' which has shown only the bad side of Calcutta. Now there is nothing right in this film also, nor right fact. We have received a telegram from the producer of the film asking us to explain this matter and claiming that their intention was very pure. We cannot say what was his intention; only God can say. Now the Naga people of Shillong took out a peaceful demonstration and met the Deputy Commissioner asking his permission for the peaceful demonstration. It was allowed and they went to the Cinema and were asking the Manager not to allow screening this film. but the Manager would not be persuaded to withdraw the film and we were told that the Deputy Commissioner turned up and said that he could not prevent the enjoyment of the public and that it must be allowed to be screened. The Naga people outside the Cinema only voiced their protests through shouting but the mighty police launched an unprovoked attack where as they were peacefully demonstrating - a right which has been established by no less a person than Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nations, that every person has the right to protest, to hold hartal and to resort to Satyagraha. These are the rights  enshrined in the Constitution of India unwarranted attack was launched upon them by the Police on the 25th March just outside the precincts of this particular Cinema Hall and those who have some experience of lathi charge know what happens. It is very difficult to attempt to pacify the boiling tempers of the Hillman when there is an unprovoked attack, even one of us might feel that we should go to the law but we may not even reach the law. The memorandum and I think it was submitted to the Chief Minister yesterday or day before yesterday in which it is said that one of the police-men beat this young Naga group. Can you imagine Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the size, thickness and the weight of the lathi by which the policeman has beaten upon the back of a particular Naga Boy ? I do not know how many of us have had the privilege of feeling lathi on our backs. To have one blow along is terrible, but to have several broke to pieces and bled from their wound for such is the case unless the lathi was made of cloth or paper. Evidently , such as unqualified and unwarranted attack was not justified. I am told Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the elder leaders in the demonstration tried their best to control their group, but when they themselves were beaten by the police, there was nothing left to do but to defend themselves. I will leave out part of that difficulty aside, but I will also talk of the rash driving of the Shri Nanda Lal,, who was the driver of the Additional Superintendent of Police. He got out and blew some boys, attacked Police driving the Jeep No. MLP 40 knocked down one of the students I do not know whether in the law it is written down to disperse the  crowd by knocking them down by jeep or by running down by jeep. Not only that, after that, Nibotu, who was bleeding mercilessly, even in that bleeding condition while he was trying to get up, he was assaulted, and one boy who tried to pick him up was also assaulted. There is one important point which I would like to suggest on this with all earnestness at my disposal that the Chief Minister and the Government should take not of this. We have what are called law courts there are courts from the smallest to the highest, there are magistrates sitting in judgement over these and there are public prosecutors appointed by law from the lowest to define the whole process of law. Now if the police are allowed to take the law into their own hands and to convict persons and also mete our punishment, then we might as well ask the Government of Meghalaya to close all the law courts and let the police become the law givers and judge  and executor of punishments- this should be one Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, This is not the first time, this happens every now and then. Again when they arrested somebody, they also beat him of course when they are not outnumbered, if they were 4 to 1 also they would not do, only when they are 9-10- to 1. Even if the person is guilty, he has to be brought before the court to prove his innocence, but the police, on the pot, passed their judgement and then beat the person until the lathi breaks. This is how we are doing away with the magisterial power, doing away with law in this State and allowing the police to take the law in their own hands. In the last incident with the C.R.P. they caught a fellow I have seen it with my four eyes, they jabbed him with the lathi, kicked him with their boots - why is this ? This one particular class of police known as the C.R.P. whom I call the Criminal Police these C.R.P. are ex- jail birds. A number of them are person who could not be rehabilitated in the society, for they spent one or two years in jail, sometimes in the quarter guards - most of you do no know what a quarter guards is - I can describe it to you. To spend even one hour in the quarter guard is like spending two years  in jail, and these persons who have been court martial led to be in quarter guard for sometime, or who have been the honoured guest of the Government in jail, when they came out they could not be rehabilitated in the society. That is how they come to be in the police force and that is how they become tough and as they are tough fellows as there is an old adage that to catch a thief or to beat a criminal, you get to be a criminal. So, here we find that these police beat to the extent of even breaking their lathis. That is why Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have so often heard these complaints. We have requested the Government from time to time to issue strict instructions that whenever any person is arrested, he must never be beaten, be he X Y or Z. tribal or not hill-man or no, punishment is to be  be meted out by the Court. I want one categorical statement from the Chief Minister that strict instructions will be issued to the police force in the State, that there should be no beating in the State, after all he is going to be judged. Let us not allow the law to be taken by the jungle police force. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is more, what is more heinous was what happened in the last fight in Anjalee Cinema, the boys were running to Laitumkhrah, Nongthymmai and every part of Shillong. I can bring evidence from the hotel keepers, the restaurant keepers that  they were hiding there and the police charged the hotel keepers and the restaurant keepers and whenever they found a Mongoloid face they caught him and anyone who has the face or the characteristic of Mongoloid face, was taken to jail, kicked by boots and beaten. Even their boots were lost, were  snatched away from them, will the Government bear the expenses for buying shoes (laughter) for most of them lost their shoes and we know the cost of leather in Shillong  which is more expensive than in any other State in India. Is Government prepared to buy shoes for those students who lived on petty scholarship given by the Government of India ? Will Government meet the medical expenses of those innocent people ? It happened  that some innocent people were coming from church, but the police at random arrested them, put them tin the truck and took them to the Police Station.. Some of the arrested persons who were not Nagas were released on  the spot. About 5 or 6 Naga boys who are living in a Mess, while lying on bed, were forcibly taken out by the police to the truck and they have no time even to dress properly. In this way, the were taken to the Police Station. All these things are very serious. We are not here to pass judgement but the facts are there. There are hundreds of witnesses from Laitumkhrah and Nongthymmai who witnessed when the innocent Nagas were beaten up. even women and children were taken to the truck , also , even their shoes and coats were thrown out from the truck. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, out of all these turmoil's, I have one thing to ask that the Government must give categorical statement and instructions be issued not be beat the people when they are being arrested and put in the secret room, I also  have experienced, where they beat not only with lathis but they even use boot to those  who have been arrested to make them confess. That is why even the Court does not accept the statement made by the police because  the court is aware of the third degree method which we wish to demand from the Government. I am sure the hon. members from Jaiaw will also substantiate and so also the other Members. There are many cases where innocent people are harassed or guilty were run over by the stream roller of the police. You may give a complaint but the guilty person will escape without proper action. The second point I would like to make is that we owe a lot to the Naga people, we  owe the highest respect for this race. They are very clean. There is no wastage of time, it is either yes, yes or no, no. The arrested persons in Nagaland are few  in number, a part from political crime, most of the police  are living in a state of holiday. But the Naga who come here are very unfortunate where so many things happened and this is the response they received from us  when only the other day the Nagas were  so gracious to approve the State cannot accommodate us. In such a case we call upon the Government to write a sympathetic letter to the Government   of Nagaland and to the Naga people for banning of the film. Now the Khasi people felt about this and they abstained from witnessing the film and the film had to be removed by the rich proprietor. So I would request  the Government,  through you, Sir, to write a letter  to the Nagaland Government, expressing sympathy and also for banning of the film and an Enquiry Commission had to be set up to look into this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :- Any other Member who would like to take part.

Shri Francis K. Mawlot :- Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would also like to say something on this. First of all, I wonder what our police are doing before such incident took place. As far as I know, we have our Special Branch of Police for maintenance of peace and security in the State, but I donot understand why such incidents took place without pre-knowledge of the Police Department and that Government were not prepared to prevent such an incid4ent and besides when the incident took place such charges from the Police personnel should have been controlled by some responsible officers. The pitiless and merciless beating of the innocent boys should not be repeated. I request the Government  through you Sir, that whenever any incident took place, the arrested persons should not be beaten. I would also like to submit to the Government that our Special Police Force should be actively working for 24 hours. If a constable is forced to stand in Policebazar for 3 hours waving his hands and giving signals to traffic and even then he is paid very low; our Special Police personnel who get a higher pay, I should say, he must be working better.

Mr. Deputy Speaker :-  Mr. Mawlot, time is almost up and since the discussion on this matter could not be completed today, may I have the leave of the House that the discussion on this matter be continued tomorrow.

(Voice - Yes, Yes)

        So, the discussion will continue tomorrow.

        The House now stands adjourned till 9 a.m. tomorrow the 3rd April, 1973.

R.T. RYMBAI,

Dated Shillong

Secretary,

The 2nd April, 1973

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.