The Meghalaya High Court has today dismissed the writ petition filed by Shillong North MLA Adelbert Nongrum against Assembly Speaker Thomas A. Sangma.
Nongrum filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of the Speaker, in not allowing the petitioner to move a Special Motion under Rule 130A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, to raise discussion in the House during the Budget Session 2024, on the CAG Report on the Social and Economic Sectors for the year ending 31.03.2022, for the State of Meghalaya.
However, Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew in a judgment passed today said that the decision of the Speaker in not allowing the Special Motion, cannot be held to be illegal or unconstitutional, notwithstanding the fact that the subject matter involves a matter of grave public importance.
“Judicial review therefore, not being available by virtue of the application of Article 212 of the Constitution, this writ petition is not entertained and is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Thangkhiew said in his order.
Justice Thangkhiew also observed that Rule 131 of the Rules of Conduct and Procedure no doubt, allows any MLA to move a motion for discussion on matters of urgent public importance, and as matter of procedure, the request had been taken up, which however, was denied on the ground that, the subject matter was under the examination of the Public Accounts Committee of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, which is evidenced by the letter dated February 19, 2024, under the caption ‘Disallowed Motion’.
“Though, it is correct that the challenge is not on the ground of irregularity of procedure, the decision of the Speaker however on examination, cannot be said to be unconstitutional to warrant judicial review, notwithstanding the submission that the subject matter involves a matter of grave public interest,” the judge observed.
During hearing of the case, Nongrum’s lawyer P Yobin, while referring to Article 212 told the court that the writ petition has not been filed on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure, which would surely bar the jurisdiction of the court, but the challenge he contends, is directed against the action of the Speaker, in curtailing the right of the petitioner as given in Article 194(1) of the Constitution.
Yobin further stated that there is no rule regulating the procedure of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly, that restricts or prohibits discussion on a report of the CAG in the House, that would qualify as a condition subjecting the privilege of the members of the legislature, which has been guaranteed under Article 194(1) of the Constitution, to any restriction.
His further assertion is that, the petitioner (Nongrum) was denied reconsideration by the Speaker, on the decision to disallow a Special Motion to discuss the CAG Report, even though, Rule 130A of the Rules of Conduct and Procedure, provides that Special Motion were to get precedents over other motions of any matter of urgent importance. Though, he submits, a notice of Breach of Privilege submitted by the petitioner under Rule 159 of the Rules of Conduct and Procedure, was admitted by the Speaker and the same was then put to vote, but was defeated, and the decision to disallow the Special Motion, was made final, the decision arrived at was motivated and unconstitutional.
Yobin lastly told the court that, the issue sought to be raised, in the Special Motion being of grave public importance, the same should have been allowed by the Speaker under Rule 130A of the Rules of Conduct and Procedure. He therefore prays that the writ petition be admitted, and be taken up for consideration. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Harish Chandra Singh Rawat vs Union of India & Anr, wherein at Para – 82, the judgment of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Raja Ram Pal vs. Lok Sabha (2007) has been relied upon.
Advocate General Amit Kumar who appeared for the Assembly Speaker strongly refuted the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, and told the court that the writ petitioner (Nongrum) by way of the writ petition is seeking to regulate the procedure of the legislature by the court.
Kumar laid strong emphasis on the mandate of Article 212 of the Constitution, to drive home the point that what has been assailed in the writ petition is the decision of the Speaker, who has made the same in the course of business of the House, which cannot be questioned before the courts.
The Advocate General further argued that the reason for disallowing the discussion was that, the report in question was still under scrutiny before the Committee on Public Accounts, which had been constituted as per Rule 241 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, and that nothing illegal or unconstitutional can be attributed to the action of the Speaker.
In support of his arguments, Kumar referred to two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely (i) Satish Chandra vs Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors and (ii) State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab & Anr.
