MEGHALAYA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
       
 SPEAKER'S RULINGS, 1998-2003

Preface

                         This booklet contains a collection of Speaker's Rulings given by the Speaker during the Sixth Meghalaya Legislative Assembly 1998-2003.

                        The Speaker is vested  with the power to interpret the Constitution and Rules, so far as matters relating to the House is concerned; and no one can question his interpretation and ruling except on a substantive Motion. Important rulings  and decisions are given by the speaker from time to time, which become conventions and precedents.

                       It is hoped that this booklet will serve as a useful ready reference to the Legislators and others who are  interested on the different types of rulings and decisions given by the speaker during the above mentioned periods.
 

   N .S. T. KHONGJI
Shillong: Secretary,
July,2003. Meghalaya Legislative Assembly

                       

C O N T E N T S

Sl.No.

Subject

Page No.

.    
 

Speaker's Rulings 1998

 
1.  Ruling on the point of order  raised by the Leader of Opposition. 1-3
2.  Ruling on a particular Government Bill. 3-4
3.  Ruling on a particular Government Bill. 4-5
4.
 
 Ruling on the two Motions of adjournment submitted by two hon. Members under Rule 56(1) of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business in Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. 5-7
 
     
 

Speaker's Rulings 1999

 
5.  Ruling on the adjournment Motion submitted by three hon. Members. 7-10
6.  Ruling on the adjournment Motion submitted by three hon. Members. 10-15
7.  Ruling on the adjournment Motion submitted by three hon. Members. 15-16
8.
 
 Ruling on the Censure Motion Notice against the Chief Minister submitted by four hon. Members. 16-17
 
9.
 
 Ruling  in the matter of a split in the Indian National Congress pertaining to the State of Meghalaya. 17-26
 
10.
 
 Ruling on the adjournment Motion notice submitted by fourteen hon. Members from the Opposition. 26-29
 
     
 

 Speaker's Rulings 2000

 
11.
 
 Ruling on the point of order raised by two Opposition Members under Rule 300 in connection with the calendar of the Winter Session. 29-30
 
     
 

 Speaker's Rulings 2001

 
12.  Ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. Member.

30-31

 

PRESIDING OFFICERS OF MEGHALAYA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,(6TH ASSEBLY,1998-2003)

  1. Shri E .K. Mawlong, Hon. Speaker - 10th March,1998-8thMarch,2000.
  2. Shri M. M. Danggo, Hon. Deputy Speaker - 8th March,2000- 30th June,2000.
  3. Shri E. D. Marak, Hon. Speaker - 30th June,2000-12thMarch,2003.

  

Sl. No.  Speaker's Rulings-1998 Reference
1.


 

             Ruling on the point of order raised by the Leader of Opposition.


 

 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. procs.,19.6.98
P.2-32.

 

          On the 19th June, 1998 during the reassembled budget session, when the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, moved grant No.1, during voting on demands for grants, the leader of opposition raised a point of order under Rule 143(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business  in Meghalaya  Legislative Assembly charging the Government to be in a minority and sought clarification as to whether the minority Government can bring these grants to the House for seeking its approval. The Speaker in his ruling ruled out that the point of order raised by the leader of Opposition was not relevant and also not admissible.

The text of the ruling was:-

             "Thank you. Now I have to give my ruling to this very very important question on a point here raised by the Leader of the Opposition where this Grant can be taken- up or not. Grant No.1.Less than two hours time we have discussed. I have given full opportunity to debate in this House. I have an opportunity also to consult my book, the Rules of procedure, the Constitution of India and also the Practice and Procedure of Parliament by Kaul and Shakdher. I will go strictly by this Book. First of all we take-up all the grant. This is the second stage. The first stage is the discussion on the budget, the second is the Voting on Demands for Grant. For each Demand when presented to the House and the Demands are categorised in two categories. All the demands are voted undercharged expenditure. We must remember if we go through rule 146 on the question of admissibility of Demands for grants. Kindly go through Rule 146(7)which stated that the  Speaker cannot admit the Cut -Motion if it is not with in one of these conditions that it shall not related to expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State. Therefore, I have not admitted since it relates to the Charge expenditure. This is the Rule. Secondly, what are those charged expenditures. The two other day when we had the Orientation Course, we have requested many members to come but very few attended. I have fixed two days for enabling us to understand more about the budgetary provision and financial matters. Now according to the Constitution of India, Article 202,on Annual Financial statement. I would like to read this article 202 Clause(3). The following expenditure shall  be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of each state (a) the Emoluments and allowances of the Governor and other expenditure relating to his office (b) the salaries and allowances of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and, in the case of a state having a Legislative Council, also of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council (c) debt charges for which the State is liable including interest, sinking and charges and redemption charges and other  expenditure relating to the raising of loans and service and redemption of debt. I will read article 202 0f the Constitution of India. It says ,i.e. 3(d) expenditure in respect of the salaries and allowances of Judges of any  High Court: (e) any sums required to satisfy any judgment, decree or award of any court or arbitral tribunal, (f) any other expenditure declared by this constitution, or by the Legislature of the state by law, to be so charged. Now, this grant is a charge expenditure. I have gone through the practice of the Parliament. Charged expenditure is not subject to voting by the House. Now, I will also come to the Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Third Edition, M .M. Kaul, S. L. Shakdher at page 601. Here also it says that  charged expenditure are not subjected to voting .  The House may discuss but it is not subject to voting. Therefore no cut motion can be admitted on charge expenditure. I have listened very carefully to the discussion, and I was thinking that some wisdom could come up. Therefore, this practice in the House today clearly shows that we have wasted 2 hours time to discuss the demand which is not subject to voting nor any cut motion can be admitted against charge expenditure. Therefore, I stress to rule that the point of order as raised by the leader of Opposition is not relevant and not admissible".

 
   
2.

Ruling on particular Government Bill.

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Procs.,30.6.98.
P.19.

 

             On the 30th June,1998 during the Budget Session, when the Minister in-charge Health and Family Welfare moved for consideration of the Meghalaya Prohibition of Smoking and Non-Smokers Health Protection Bill,1998 and Leader of Opposition, gave some suggestions to the provision on the bill and suggested that the bill be referred to the select Committee. The Speaker in his ruling refused to referred the bill to the Select Committee at this stage.

The text of the Ruling was:-

              "There is a difference between the previous bill and this Bill now. Regarding this Bill as moved by the Minister in-charge we have already agreed to in principal right from the beginning. If you have anything to say against this bill you should have come up in an amendment according to the provisions of the Bill. So this Bill cannot be referred to a Select Committee".

 
     
3. 

                 Ruling on a particular Government Bill. 

 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly procs.,30.6.98
P.20-27.

 

              On the 30th June,1998 during the re-assembled Budget Session, when the Minister in-charge Taxation moved for the consideration of the Meghalaya Taxation Law (Amendment) Bill 1998 two hon. Members from  the opposition raised points about the objectives of the Bill. One of the Members pointed out that the principle of the power is being taken away from the legislature to the executive as legislation has not been resorted to on this particular bill. The Members proposed that the bill should be referred to the Select Committee. The Speaker in his ruling ruled that no action will be taken on this unless an amendment is brought to the Assembly and since there was no amendment, that bill was allowed to be passed.

 The text of the ruling was:-

              "Mr. Lapang the Government can come up with any amendment. It can be referred suomoto unless the Government has made a decision to do so. Any other Member may request and bring an amendment to refer the Bill to the Select Committee. you can not just refer like this.

Shri D. D. Lapang :- Sir, I am not clear about this point No.4 about the statement of objects and reasons.

Mr. Speaker :- He has replied very clearly that in the next Session it will be taken-up, if necessary. Now they will not action. They come-up with some proposals on that. No action will be taken before they come to the  Assembly. This is  the assurance of the Minister.

Shri D. D. Lapang :- So you will not take action on this?

Mr. Speaker:- No, unless they come-up with the proposal for amendment, if any, to the Assembly".

 
     
4. 

              Ruling on the two Motions of adjournment submitted by two Hon'ble Members under rule 56(1) of the rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the  Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Procs.,15.12.98
 P.4-5.

 

            On  the 15th December,1998 the first day of the Winter Session the Speaker disallowed the adjournment Motion submitted jointly by Shri C.R. Marak and Shri N.N. Simchang in connection to the discussion on the "prevailing law and order situation in Meghalaya in general and in Garo Hills in particular". The other adjournment Motion submitted by Shri T.H. Rangad in connection to the discussion on the "Shillong Municipal Boards Election announced to be held shortly" was also disallowed by the Speaker. The speaker in his ruling disallowed both the adjournment motions on the ground that they were not in order.

The text of the ruling was:-

              "Now, I would  first like to dispose of the second notice. According to Rule 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of  Business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, it is clearly mentioned that not more than one such motion shall be made at the same sitting . Therefore, according to this rule, it is very clear and that I cannot entertain to such motions of adjournment. Moreover, with regard to the second motion, I have also admitted a motion submitted by Mr. H. S. Lyngdoh to discuss on the law and order situation prevailing in the state. Therefore, the second Motion submitted by both the Hon'ble Members is, therefore, not admissible and also not in order. Now, with regard to the first notice, I have examined whether the matter is desired by the Hon'ble Member, Mr. T. H. Rangad be considered as definite matter of urgent public importance as mentioned in the rules of procedure or not.  In this respect, I would like to refer to the practice and procedure of parliament by Kaul and Shakdher. In page 504, the views and guidance by Kaul and Shakdher in the parliamentary procedure are very important for us. According to their opinion, a matter to be considered 'urgent' must be in the nature of emergency. A matter which has been continuing for some time cannot be raised through an adjournment motion. It also said that a matter even of very recent occurrence is not 'urgent' if an  opportunity for its discussion will arise in the ordinary course of business within a reasonably short time. A matter which can be raised under any other procedure device, that is, calling attention notices, questions, short notice questions, half-an-hour discussion, short duration discussion, etc. cannot be raised through an adjournment motion.

             In this particular case, the election as announced by the Government is the second time. The first election has already been completed on 17th November,1998-nearly a month ago. Therefore, the question of urgency does not arise here. the matter could have been taken up and discussion held with the Government during the last few weeks. More over, as already opined in the practice  and procedure of Parliament by Kaul and Shakdher, a starred question on the same subject was admitted by me on the election to the Shillong Municipal Board. The question was asked by Shri P. M .Syiem, the Hon'ble Member from Mylliem Constituency which will be disposed of on the 17th of this month. I do understand the feelings of the hon'ble Members who have submitted this adjournment motion and, because of the facts stated by me, I will not be able to admit this adjournment motion since it is not in order".

 
     
   Speaker's Rulings -1999  
     
5. 

              Ruling on the adjournment Motion submitted by three hon. Members. 

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly procs.,22.3.99 
 P.8-10.     

 

              On the 22nd March, 1999 during the Budget Session, immediately after the question hour, the speaker in his ruling disallowed the adjournment motion submitted jointly by Shri C. R. Marak, Shri M. M. Danggo and Shri Cyprian Sangma in connection with the news item appearing in the Shillong times dated 18.3.99 under the caption "Hopingstone urges Scott to act or face civil war".  The adjournment motion was not entertained as a calling attention notice has already been admitted similar to the same subject to be moved on the 23rd March,1999.

 The text of the ruling was :-

             "As soon as I received this notice I have gone through the Rules of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Now according to the Rules it is very clear, I would like to remind the hon'ble Members of this House. Now first we come to the rules. I have to study the subject matter under which this motion was brought under rules 56(i). Now this letter speak about another letter purported to have written by Shri H.S. Lyngdoh to the Home Minister whereby there was a threat from the hon'ble Member as it is indicated in the letter. It is a letter from Shri H.S. Lyngdoh addressed to the  Home Minister. Now although it speaks about seriousness of the matter and it refers to the News item which appears in the Shillong Times, I may inform the House that I have also received a call attention notice from Shri P. M. Syiem hon'ble Member from Mylliem Constituency and this notice was submitted by him in the form of a calling attention notice under Rule 54 of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Now this call Attention notice which has been already admitted by me is to be taken up tomorrow the 23.3.99 on the subject matter which was also published in the Shillong Times dated 17th March,1999, under the caption" Fear Psychosis grips the border villages" to be replied by the Government tomorrow. So now, under the Rules 56 of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business, 57(iv) where it speaks about the admissibility of the matter, it says  'a motion must not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration, which has been already appointed for consideration of the house through a  Calling Attention Notice .I have already admitted and the subject matter can be raised tomorrow. In the event that the Member is not being satisfied by the reply to be given by the Government, then there are other means where the mover or other Members can take up discussion on the matter. Therefore, I have to go strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. I do not see any valid reasons that this is a very serious matter involving the law and order problem which can be taken up for further discussion in the House but it is just matter which relates only to a letter written by one Member  to the Government. Therefore, I do not think it needs ant attention of the House especially when the matter is coming up tomorrow for discussion. If you are not satisfied with the reply of the Government to be given on the Calling Attention Notice, Then only you can resort to any other rule which is admissible.

Shri C. R. Marak :- Sir, I just beg to differ from Rule 54 that is Calling attention to a matter of urgent public importance. I totally agree with you. But according to the rules, it says that there shall be no debate on the calling attention motion. So it is not only from  Shri Hopingstone Lyngdoh but we are talking about the participants from the H. S. P. D.P.

Mr. Speaker :-  I am talking  about the admissibility of the matter to discuss on the issue.

Shri C. R. Marak :-The adjournment motion, we would like to take up in this august  House.

Mr. Speaker :-Mr. Marak, please sit down. The matter will be taken up tomorrow and the reply will be given on the Calling Attention Notice. But if you are not satisfied , then you can come up with other Rules.

Shri C.R. Marak:- We are not satisfied since the Home Minister has not yet written any letter to the Government.

Mr. Speaker :-We will see tomorrow and we will  allow you. so according to the Rules, I have to go strictly. This notice of adjournment motion is not admitted at all".

 

 
6. 

              Ruling on the adjournment motion submitted by three hon. Members. 

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Procs.,24.3.99
P.20-23

 

             On the 24th March,1999 during the Budget Session immediately after the question hour, the Speaker gave his ruling by disallowing the adjournment motion notice submitted by  Shri. T. H. Rangad, Shri Cyprian Sangma and Shri. C.R. Marak in connection with the incident of kidnapping of a business man on the 23rd March,1999. The adjournment motion was disallowed as it did not warrant the provision of "urgent matter of public importance".

The text of the ruling was :-

             "After I have received this notice, I have gone in to the provision of the rule as mentioned in the notice, Rule 56(i) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct  of Business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Now, the question is that whether this adjournment motion is admissible or not. According to the Rule it says that motion for adjournment of the business of the Assembly for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance may be made with the consent of the Speaker. The question is whether this matter has the urgency and public  importance to be discussed. Now, there are many incidents of such nature which have taken place and whether such incident will warrant the adjournment of the House for discussion of the matter immediately after the question hour. I have studied the matter and I have also been guided by they practice in the parliament by Kaul and Shakdher, and I found this guidance which I would like to bring to the notice of the House because such incidents and may be other such incidents may come up every now and then like shooting, murder cases, and whether this type of incidents Warrant the adjournment of the House. Now I will read only the relevant portion of Kaul and Shakdher Practice and Procedure in the Parliament.

Shri C.R. Marak :-Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would interrupt. You are are talking about the Practice  in the Parliament. Here we are guided by the Rules of Procedure and  Conduct of  Business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. So I feel that we have got  to do nothing with the practice in the Parliament or Lok Sabha.

Mr. Speaker :-  I cannot help. whenever Rules are not clear we have  to go to the practice of the Parliament also.

Shri. T. H. Rangad :-Mr. Speaker, Sir, you should take the sense of the House.

Shri. C.R. Marak :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, unless we get the Rule how do we practice and how we are to be guided by the Rule. It is of no use. We must  be guided by our own rules and Procedure. I have been elected as M.L.A. and not as M. P. So I must  be guided by the Rules and Procedure and Conduct of Business in the   Meghalaya Legislative Assembly and not by the practice in the parliament.

Shri J.D. Rymbai ( Minister in-charge P.W.D.):- Mr. Speaker, Sir, this is not the behavior expected from the Members of both sides of the House. Whenever the Hon'ble speaker is interpreting  the Rule and he is going to give his ruling other Members from either side of the House should not disturb.

Shri C.R. Marak :- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we are not practicing the rule of the parliament here.

Mr. Speaker :- As I have said we have always resorted to the Rules and Practice in the Parliament whenever the rules are not clear. We have also to take the guidance from  such incident which have taken place in the parliament. Now, many times adjournment motions have been brought in this House, and unless and until it demands the immediate adjournment of the house this matter is not allowed through adjournment motion. We have other means to bring to the notice of the House either through the Zero Hour Notice or Calling Attention notice and not through adjournment motion. That is why, when this matter has been brought I have  to consult our own rules  and also the rules and practice in the parliament which is normally done not only today but in other times as well. Therefore,  let me refer to the incident in the Parliament. You may say that this is not the Parliament but the fact remains that we have been following the rules adopted by Parliament and Lok Sabha and other States' Legislatures.

Shri C. R. Marak:- Mr. Speaker, Sir, two times we have brought this motion but we understand that you are not going to allow.

Shri. T. H. Rangad :- Mr. Speaker, Sir,  this is a serious matter. Do not look at the Home Minister. We demand that the adjournment motion be allowed. The man is killed. he is the citizen of the state. This is a matter of public importance.

Mr. Speaker :- I will not allow such matter to be taken up through adjournment motion but I will request the Government and the Home minister to make a statement and that's all.

Shri. T. H. Rangad:- Mr. Speaker, Sir, we demand that the motion be allowed under Rule 56. We do not know any thing about the Practice in the Parliament.

Mr. Speaker :- We are following the Rule adopted by  Parliament.

Shri. T. H. Rangad :- This is not the way.

(AT THIS STAGE Shri C. R. Marak and Shri T. H. Rangad WALK INTO THE WELL OF THE HOUSE AND THUMPED THE TABLE)

Shri T. H. Rangad :- Two times we have brought this but we are disallowed. A man is being killed but here you are not the least bothered. You are bothered about the TA/DA of Ministers. Is this ordinary man also not  important? He is also a citizen. In Orissa, when a missionary was killed, there was a rally and meeting organised in the Assembly premises.

Mr. Speaker :-   Please sit down.

  (SHRI C. R. MARAK WALK OUT OF THE HOUSE)

Shri. A. H. Scott Lyngdoh (Minister in-charge Home):- Sir, it is very unfortunate that this type of behaviour should be adopted by the hon'ble member from Laban.

Shri. T. H. Rangad :- Sir, we are force to adopt this attitude. Three crimes were committed yesterday, but still they don't want to discuss. Is it not serious enough?

Dr. M. Sangma ( Minister in-charge Co-operation):- Sir, I think action should be taken against the hon'ble member from Chokpot under the Rules for contempt of the proceedings of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker :-  I did not expect such behaviour. I have said that the Minister Home can make a statement, and afterwards if you are not satisfied, any motion could be brought for clarification. You will have two and half hour discussion. So for the time being, I will disallow this adjournment".
 

 
7. 

              Ruling on the adjournment motion submitted by the three hon. Members

Meghalaya  Legislative Assembly Procs.,25.3.99. P.12-13

 

             On the 25th March,1999 during the Budget Session, immediately after the question hour, the speaker gave his ruling by disallowing the adjournment motion, submitted ten minutes before the House assembled by T. H .Rangad, Shri C. R. Marak and Shri M. M. Danggo on the prevailing deteriorating law and order problem of the state. the adjournment motion was disallowed on the ground that similar motion has already been admitted by him.

The text of the ruling was :-

              "So I think the hon'ble members before they submit any Adjournment  motion, I think they must have gone properly through the rules of Procedure and conduct of Business in the House. Under Rule 57(iv), It says very clearly that the  right to move  the Adjournment Motion of the Assembly for discussing the matter of public interest shall be subject to the following restrictions namely: (iv) the motion must  not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration or with reference o which a notice motion has been previously given, regarding being had to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time. This is one of the condition for the submission of the Adjournment Motion. I would like to inform the House that I have admitted one similar motion which is to be taken up by the House and that is the  first page of the admitted list of the Motion and this Motion is listed in Sl.4 tabled by Shri. H. S. Lyngdoh. the Motion read as follows: " This House Discuss the prevailing Law and Order in the State of Meghalaya. This is already in the House which is to be taken up very shortly. This is a similar notice. Kindly bear with me. Since the subject has been admitted by me I think I will not be able to admit the notice. So, thank you".

 
     
8. 

             Ruling on the censure Motion Notice against the Chief Minister submitted by four hon. Members

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Procs.,7.4.99  
P.14-15

 

            On the 7th April,1999 during the Budget Session, Four hon. Members from Opposition viz: Shri H. S. Lyngdoh, Shri P. M. Syiem, Shri T. H. Rangad and Shri C. R. Sangma submitted a censure Motion under Rule 133 of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business against the Chief Minister, Shri B. B. Lyngdoh, charging him of failure to tackle law and order, State Economy failure, Border problem etc. The Speaker in his ruling granted leave for moving the Motion as the application was in order and supported by twelve Members.

The text of the ruling was:-

              "Now, I have gone through the relevant Rules and  provision of rule 133 of the rule of procedure and Conduct of business in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, and I found that the Notice is in order. Therefore, according to Sub- Rule 3 of Rule 133 I request these members who are in favour for leave to be granted to this motion to kindly rise in their respective places.

( At this stage , all the Members who are in favour of this Motion rose and after counting by the Secretary, the total number comes to 12).

              So, there are 12 Members. So according to the Rule we require 10 numbers but there are already 12 members. Leave is granted and Motion will take up on the last day, that is on the 9th after Government Business is dispose of and we will take up this Motion".

 

 
     
9. 

               Ruling in the matter of split in the Indian National Congress pertaining to the State of Meghalaya. 

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Procs.,22.6.99
P.62-68.

 

              On the 22nd June,1999 during the Summer Session, the hon. Speaker gave his decision in the matter of split in the Indian National Congress in the State of Meghalaya after he received an application dated  Shillong 31st May,1999 signed by 9(nine) hon'ble Members of the Assembly. The Speaker in his ruling recognised the split in the Indian National Congress in the State, on the ground that the split group have required one third of the total strength of the Congress Legislature Party, as it is evident from the documents received by the hon'ble  Speaker.

  The text of the ruling was :-

               "Decision in the matter of a split in the Indian National Congress pertaining to the State of Meghalaya and recognition of the split group named and styled as the "Meghalaya Congress Legislature Party" consisting of nine Hon'ble Members under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

              In the matter of application filed by nine members of the Meghalaya Congress Legislature Party on 2nd June,1999.

1.           On the 2nd June,1999 at11.30 A.M I received an application dated Shillong, the 31st May,1999 signed by 9 (nine) Hon'ble Members of the Assembly, namely (1) Shri Lotsing A. Sangma,(2) Shri Adolf Lu Hitler Marak, (3) Shri Admiral K. Sangma,(4) Shri Brening A. Sangma, (5) Shri Methrona Marak, (6) Shri Beckstar Sangma, (7) Shri Elstone D. Marak, (8) Shri  Abdus Saleh and (9) Shri Monindra Rava informing  about the split in the Indian National Congress both at the national level and at the state level. The application state that  they informed a separate New Legislature Party under the name and style of 'Meghalaya Legislature Party' at the meeting held on the 31st May,1999 and have elected Shri Lotsing A. Sangma as leader in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

2.            In the aforesaid application, the 9(nine) hon'ble Members have made a request that they are recognised as a separate group and be allotted separate seat in the Assembly.

3.          Along with  the aforesaid  application there are certain original documents being tagged to it.

4.           These documents state that there has been a split in the Indian National Congress and the  Meghalaya Pradesh Congress Committee (I) and the formation of the Meghalaya Congress Legislature Party under the leadership of Shri Lotsing A Sangma.

5.           The documents contain the signature of office bearers, Executive Members, Members of the MPCC/AICC /Block Congress Committee different Constituencies in Garo Hills who have given their consent to the spilt in the Original Political Party, that is, the Indian National Congress pertaining to the State of Meghalaya.-ANNEXURE I.

6.           On the same day. that is, the 2nd June,1999 at 5.45P.M. I received a letter from Shri Methrona Marak,  who is one of the signatories to the application, as stated in paragraph 1 above, in which he has stated that he is withdrawing  his support to the split  from the Congress Legislature Party and that his earlier signature to effect a split in the Congress Legislature Party may be treated as null and void.-ANNEXURE II.

7.           On the 10th June,1999, I received a letter dated Shillong, the 9th June, 1999 at 4.25P.M. from Shri C. B. Marak, Secretary, Congress Legislature Party stating that 4 (four ) Honourable Members, namely, Shri Lotsing A Sangma, MLA, Shri Adolf -Lu  - Hitlar Marak, MLA, Shri Brening A. Sangma, MLA, and Shri Admiral K. Sangma, MLA have been expelled from the Indian National Congress and consequently ceased to be Members of the  Congress Legislature Party. Shri  C.B. Marak has categorically stated in his said letter that the Indian National Congress has not split neither in the organisation nor in the Parliamentary/ Legislative levels.- ANNEXURE III.

8.           On perusal of the letter, it is surprised to  note that there is no mention nor statement about the date of the expulsion of the said four Honourable Members

9.           On the same date, that is, the 10th June,1999, I received  a letter dated 9th June,1999 from Ambika Soni, General Secretary. All India Congress Committee (I). New Delhi bringing to my notice that the All India Congress Committee has ratified the expulsion from the primary membership of the Indian National Congress with Effect from 2nd June,1999 of the said 4(four)Honourable members together with Shri B. B. Dutta. M.P. (Rajya Sabha)- Nominated.

10.          In the noted letter, Ambika Soni has denied the split in the Indian National Congress at all India Level or in the Meghalaya Congress Committee (I) at the State level.-ANNEXURE IV.

11.          It may be  pointed out that it is only in the said letter of Ambika Soni that the date of expulsion of the 4(four) Honourable Members has been mentioned.

12.          In this regard, I am compelled to comment about the failure of Shri C. B. Marak, Secretary, Congress Legislature Party to inform me as to the date of the expulsion of the 4(four) Honourable Members.

13.          I received a letter dated Shillong, the 10th June,1999 from Shri B. B. Lyngdoh, Hon'ble Chief Minister, Meghalaya whereby he has enclosed letter dated 2nd June,1999 from Shri Lotsing A. Sangma, Leader of the split group who has expressed the unconditional support to the Government headed by Shri B. B. Lyngdoh.-
ANNEXURE V.

14.         While the matter was under my active consideration, on 16th June,1999 at 9.45 A.M.. I received another letter dated 15th June,1999 from Shri Methrona Marak, MLA which reads as follows:"............. my letter of withdrawal of support dated 2.6.99 from the newly split group i.e. Meghalaya Legislature Party had been signed by me under wrongfully misguided duress and overtures for which, I feel much sad regretted".

15.          In this letter Shri Methrona Marak, MLA had requested that his letter dated 2nd June,1999, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph be withdrawn.-ANNEXURE VI.

16.         I shall deal and decide on this point in due course.

17.        On the 15th June,1999 at 10.45 P.M. I received another letter dated 15th June,1999 from Shri C. B. Marak, Secretary, Congress Legislature Party  where by he has stated that the action of the 4 (four) Honourable Members, namely, Shri Elstone D.Marak, MLA, Shri Abdus Saleh, MLA, Shri Beckstar K. Sangma,MLA and Shri Monindra Rava, MLA who had voted along with the Opposition contrary to the direction issued by the Party during the course of the day's proceedings in the Assembly on 15th june,1999 attracts paragraph 2(b) of the tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India which specifies for disqualification on grounds of defection, and are liable to disqualified.

18.         Shri C. B. Marak has requested that appropriation steps in consonance with the relevant provisions of the tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India be taken against them.-ANNEXURE  VII.

19.         Before taking up with the main issue on the split in the Indian National  Congress, I would like, to deal first the letter of withdrawal of Shri Methrona Marak, MLA.

20.         I have gone through the documents and I do not find any complaint or received any complaint  what so ever against Shri Methrona Marak, MLA in his action to his letter dated 2nd June,1999 and similarly, I have not received any complaint from any quarter challenging the veracity of the letter dated 15th June, 1999 of Shri Methrona Marak, MLA.

21.         It is to be noted that similar situation has arisen when B. B. Lyngdoh, Hon'ble Chief Minister   in his letter to me dated 11th June, 1999 has stated that the  contents of his letter dated 10th June, 1999 stand withdrawn - ANNEXTURE - VIII.

22.         In this connection, I would like to mention that in the course of the proceedings before this August House, I had brought the matter before the August House informing about the withdrawal of the contents of the letter of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as stated in paragraph 21 herein above.

23.          I feel in this point alone, I could dispose the entire matter. But I refrain from doing so at this stage, as I wish to discuss and decide on the main point of split in the Indian National Congress pertaining  to the state of Meghalaya which is very vital to the case in hand.

24.         From the documents I find that the matter of a split in the Indian National Congress pertaining to the state of Meghalaya is unique in its kind in the history of Meghalaya. It is vivid that the split in the Indian National Congress as per aforesaid documents is not only at the level of the Legislature Party but also at the level of the original political party. The split at the organisational level means a split from the grass root level. It is evident from the documents, many office bearers, Executive Members , Members of the Pradesh Congress Committee of Meghalaya, District Congress Committee, Block Congress  Committee, Primary Congress Committee and a good numbers of supporters from different constituencies in Garo Hills have left the Indian National Congress and have connected  to the split of the original political party. Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India provides-' Disqualification on Ground of Defection not to apply in case of split- where a Member of a House makes a claim that he and any other members of his Legislature Party constitute a group representing a faction which has arisen as a result of a split in his original political party and such group consists of not less than one- third of the Members of such Legislature Party'. Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule clearly envisages also the split in the original political party. The constitution however is silent as to the nature, form, mode or and the manner of a split in the original political party which are very essential for determination of the split in the original political party. in the absence  of what has been stated in paragraph 3 above, a split in the original political party, therefore shall be such that it has to satisfactorily and convincingly show that there has been a split in the original political party in  what ever form or manner which will ultimately lead to the conclusion that there was a split in the original political party. Turning now to the split at the level of the State Legislature Party, the documents, as stated in the foregoing paragraph show that 9 (nine) Hon'ble Members whose name are mentioned in paragraph 1 above, have duly consented to the split at the level of Legislature Party. Far more, Shri B. B. Lyngdoh, Hon'ble Chief Minister, Meghalaya in his letter dated 10th June, 1999, as mentioned of a split group as claimed by Shri. L. A. Sangma in his letter dated 2nd June.1999 sent to the Chief Minister. Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India has also clearly mentioned the split in the Legislature Party which split group has to obtain one-third of the total membership in the Legislature. In the final analysis and for the foregoing reasons, it is therefore, hold as follows. here is my order:

1.           The request of Shri Methrona Marak, Hon'ble member to treat his letter on 2nd June,1999 as withdrawn is accordingly allowed. 2. The split in the Indian National Congress pertaining to Meghalaya which took place on 31st May, 1999 both at the level of the original political party and at the level of the Legislature party stands as valid.  3. The new split  New split group named and styled as  the 'Meghalaya Congress Legislature Party' does not attract  disqualification under paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India since  the new split group command the required number of more than one-third of the total strength of 28 Members of the Congress Legislature party.     
4.           The plea of Shri C .B. Marak, Secretary, Congress Legislature party and that  Shri Ambika Soni General Secretary, All India Congress Committee (I) New Delhi, that there is no split in the Indian National Congress at all India Level or the Meghalaya Congress Committee at the state level cannot be entertained and accepted. Accordingly, the new split group named and style as the ' Meghalaya Congress Legislature party' is here by recognised in the House with immediate effect. 5. Before parting with the record, I would like to inform the August House that Shri C.B. Marak, Secretary, Congress Legislature party in his letter dated 15th June,1999(AnnexureVII) has requested to take action against 4 Hon'ble members, namely, Shri Elstone D. Marak, Shri Abdul Saleh, Shri Beckstar  K. Sangma and  Shri Monindra Rava under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the constitution of India. The letter above cannot be treated as a complaint for taking action under the provision of the tenth schedule to the Constitution of India as it has not fulfilled the requirements of Rule 6 of the Members of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. (Disqualification on ground of defection) Rules, 1999.  The office is directed to return the aforesaid letter to Shri C. B. Marak, Secretary, Congress Legislature party forthwith".
 

 
10.  Ruling on the adjournment motion notice submitted by fourteen members from opposition. 

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly
Procs., 17.12.99
P.21-23

 

            On the 17th December, 1999 during the Winter Session, the Speaker gave his ruling by disallowing the adjournment motion, submitted by fourteen hon. Members from the opposition in connection with the situation prevailing in the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, arising out of the non-payment of salary to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council staff for 4 months, due to non-release of the due share to the G.H.A.D.C by the State Government. The adjournment motion was disallowed on the ground that the matter was not of urgent public importance.

            The text of the ruling was :-

           "Thank you, Mr. Lapang and Mr. Dan. Now after I have received this notice, I have gone through the rules regarding this question of urgent public importance. How the Leader of Opposition has quoted rules from the practise and Procedure of Parliament. Now I have also gone through this book Practice and Procedure of Parliament by Kaul and Shakdher. I would like to refer to Page 414 of the Book 'Practice and Procedure of Parliament' which reads as follows ' Normally no business not included in the list of business for the day can be transacted at any sitting without the permission of the Speaker. However, a matter of urgent public importance can be raised by interrupting the regular business of the House through an adjournment motion tabled at the earliest opportunity, if the Speaker gives his consent thereto. In the words of Speaker Mavalankar : 'An adjournment motion is rally a very exceptional thing, because hon'ble Members will see that to allow a matter to be discussed in the House in respect of which no previous notice is given and which is not placed on the Order Paper, is doing injustice to a large number of absent members. Therefore, the practice has been that nothing will be introduced extraneously in the Order Paper of the day unless the occasion is of such a character that something very grave, something which affects the whole country, its safety, its interests and all that is happening, and the House must pay its attention immediately. Then only an adjournment motion can be conceived. Adjournment motions are not included in the Order  Paper unless the extent of the matter, its importance, its gravity, justifies it'. Now this issue of non-payment of salaries to the staffs of the Garo Hills District Council has been there for the last 4 months as the notice has mentioned. It is not a question which has happened only yesterday. Now when the matter has been there for the last 4 months and the session has been summoned Members could have come up with other forms for seeking clarification from the Government, whether through questions, call attention notice, Motion or short notice question which are admissible. So the Members have already had the opportunity to come up with different forms. So now the question of coming up with an adjournment motion, I do not think that it warrants immediate discussion in the House. Moreover, the Parliamentary Affairs Minister has already informed the House that Government has already taken steps.. I also had a discussion with the Mining & Geology Minister, and he informed me that the department had already released Rupees One Crore, Forty-five lakhs on 16.11.99 as share of royalty to the District Council. Now there is voting on supplementary demands which will come up on Monday where we will still have the opportunity to discuss. This clarification can also be sought from the Government while moving cut motion. Therefore, in my opinion, I do not consider this motion as urgent and important to be taken up today"

          "I will give my ruling now, I have allowed only the Leader of the Opposition and he has already made sufficient points as the admissibility of the Motion and it has stated clearly that the matter is not of urgency and we had many appointees to go in the form which we have not done that. So the motion is not admissible, I have given my ruling".
 

 
  Speakers Rulings - 2000
 
 
11. 

Ruling on the Point of order raised by two opposition Members under rule 300 in connection with the calendar of the Winter Session. 

Meghalaya
Legislative Assembly
Procs., 15.12.2000
P.11 - 12

 

           On the 15th December, 2000 (Winter Session) when the Speaker called the House to order, Shri C. R. Marak and  Shri P. M. Syiem raised a point of order under Rule 300 and 301 (A) asking for extension the periods of the Session by 2 days more as they feel that time is very limited because there are many issues to be discussed. Shri C. R. Marak, also wanted to know why the Minister in-charge Parliamentary Affairs, did not attend the Business Advisory Committee. The Speaker in his ruling agreed on the numbers of days fixed earlier in the presence of the Leader of Opposition during the Business Advisory Committee Meeting.

           The Text of the ruling was :-

         "Now, I will give my ruling. I have called meeting on 8th December, 2000 for the discussion about the calendar of this Winter Session, and accordingly, the Hon'ble Leader of Opposition, Mr. D. D. Lapang and Mr. Elstone Kharkongor and myself attended the B.A.C. meeting in my chamber. Actually I enquired about the parliamentary Minister and I told the Leader of Opposition that the Minister himself did not attend, so whether we will postpone the meeting or not. When I enquired about this, the Leader of Opposition said that we have the quorum so we can go ahead. So, we discussed thoroughly about the calendar of this Winter Session. When I asked how many days we will hold for this Winter Session, our Leader of Opposition  told that now we are all having Christmas mood, so we may take only two days. Actually, I intended.........

(Interruption)

Shri. D. D. Lapang (Leader of Opposition) :- No, I actually said that it is too less and we need extension..................... (Interruption)

Mr. Speaker :- Then he said, 'Okay', that will be alright. So, I will stand on this point". 

 

 
  Speaker's Rulings - 2001
 
 
12.  Ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. Member 

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly
Procs., 18.6.2001
P.15 - 29

          On the 18th June, 2001 during the Budget Session, the hon. Member Shri. Sujit K. Sangma, raised a point of order under rule 300 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in connection with the decisions of the special meeting held in the chamber of the Hon'ble Speaker on the 15th June, 2001 where it was decided to disallowed cut Motions on those subjects falling under the purview of the respective Standing Committees. The hon. Members suggested for reviewing the decisions of the Special Meeting, revision of calendar and re-convened the Business Advisory Committee. The Speaker in his ruling agreed to re-convene the meeting.

         The text of the ruling was :-

         " I have heard from both sides of the members of this house and some of the members expressed concerned over the non-acceptance of the cut motion which we have convened recently. Taking into consideration, for the reviewing of this meeting for discussion in detail, I feel that if you review on this, our Senior members of this August House who had attended the day before yesterday on this cut motion feel really bit disturbed. The majority of the Hon'ble Members of this August House are in the view of reviewing on this matter. I will convene the meeting within  a day or two. So, I will give an invitation letters to whom I wish to invite on this".

 
     

******

Sl. No. SPEAKER'S RULING - 1972 Date
.         Ruling on the adjournment motion notice submitted by the hon. Member from Laban.

27.3.72

     
 

        The Hon. Speaker Prof. R.S. Lyngdoh during the March-April Session 1972 gave his ruling by not admitting the adjournment Motion submitted by Shri Parsvanath Chaudhuri hon. Member from Laban and ruled it as out of order.

 
          Ruling by the Speaker :-  
     
 

        "After I have heard from what one of the hon. Members has said about the adjournment motion, I would request the hon. Member concerned who proposes to move the adjournment motion to understand the real spirit of the adjournment motion. The adjournment motion is actually the motion which we can take resort to only when no other rules can really be taken resort to. In fact there are many other means through which the hon. Member can get information from the Government. Under rule 50 the hon. Member may be able to raise discussion on matters of urgent nature and of public importance through a Calling Attention. When I look into the contents of the adjournment motion practically I found nothing to show that there has been a failure or lapse on the part of the Government. So the motion cannot be admitted and if the hon. Member insists on getting information, I would advise to take resort to some other measures or means because the adjournment motion is actually a motion which aims at disrupting the business of the House for the day. And as pointed out by the Leader of the House, the motion should have reached the Minister concerned and since it did not reach him, I rule it out of order."

 
Sl. No.

SPEAKER'S RULING - 1972

4.7.72.

          Ruling on the pronunciation of Meghalaya.  
     
          The Hon. Speaker Prof. R.S. Lyngdoh, during the Budget Session 1972 gave his ruling in connection with the official pronunciation of the name of the State inside the House.  
     
          Ruling by the Speaker :-  
     
 

        "Before I call upon the order hon. Members to participate on this Resolution May I point out certain misconception on the part of some of the hon. Members. I hope my remarks will be caught in sentiment of the hon. members present in this House that the name of the State should not be mispronounced or misspell.

 
     
 

        The name of the State should not be mispronounced misused. Outside the House a member may have the liberty of pronouncing the name in whatever manner. Somebody pronounces it Meghalaya. Some pronounces Meghaloy and some pronounce Meghalaya but the official pronunciation is Meghalaya".

 
Sl. No.

SPEAKER'S RULING - 1972

30.11.77

          Ruling on the point of order raised by the Minister-in-charge of Parliamentary Affairs.  
     
 

        The Hon. Speaker Prof. R.S. Lyngdoh, during the Winter Session, 1977 gave his ruling on the point of order raised by the Minister-in-charge Parliamentary Affairs. In connection with the censure motion notice submitted by the Hon. Members Shri M.N. Majaw. The Hon. Speaker in his ruling admitted the censure motion, as there are more then 10 Members who stood up.

 
     
  Ruling by the Speaker :-         
     
 

        "I have listened attentively to the please made by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and other hon. members. There is a lot of difference between the extension of the sitting of the House to transact ordinary business as admitted by the under rules and as already approved of by the House. The House yesterday rejected extension of the sitting on the ground of transacting ordinary business. But here is a case of a motion where the hands of the Speaker are practically tied. I wish I should come across a rule which may say that on the last day such kind of a motion shall not be raised. But the rule here says that it shall be raised on any day before the member decided to move a motion before the commencement of the sitting of the day. Here the day is not definite whether first or second or the middle or the last day and practically speaking  in our rules we have not made a distinction between a no-confidence motion and a censure motion although in some other Legislatures there is a clear distinction ; and, in so far a s the day to be allotted is concerned this does not refer to the day allotted for transacting the ordinary business which has already been admitted. The allotted number of days here speaks of the days to be allotted for the purpose of this particular kind of motion. The practice everywhere, in so far as a no-confidence motion is concerned is that when it comes up it must be disposed of. That is the practice everywhere. It is a practice in all Legislatures all over the world. Of course, I know it is really a matter of great inconvenience to many of us or to the whole House. But if more then 10 Members stand in support of the Motion though I have not put that-then leave is granted. I have no other alternative. But it is wrong to say that while fixing the date I will not consult anybody. While fixing the date in the Lok Sabha or anywhere else, the Speaker always consult the header of the House. That is the practice. So, I think, the point raised by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs is really not relevant in this particular kind of censure motion. Now let me ask those members who support this motion moved by Prof. Majaw, to stand up.

 
 

(Twelve members rose in this seats)

 
     
          There are more than 10, so leave is granted. And so far as the date is concerned, I will consult the Leader of the House and announce it a little later."