Congress waiting for Speaker’s ruling on petition against merger by ex-MLAs to NPP: Pala

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaSeptember 21, 2024

The opposition Congress on Friday threatened to approach the High Court if the ruling of the Assembly Speaker in regards to its petition challenging the merger of the three former Congress MLAs with the ruling National People’s Party (NPP) is not satisfactory.

The Congress has filed two petitions – one against the two suspended MLAs – Charles Marngar (Mawhati) and Gabriel Wahlang (Nongstoin) and the other against Dr Celestine Lyngdoh (Umsning) – after they joined the NPP on August 19.

“The main point (in the petitions) we stick is para 21 (a) of the 10^th Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950 in the sense that they willingly do away with the membership which is not allowed,” Congress chief Vincent H Pala told reporters while addressing a news conference here.

“We had filed in the court of the Speaker. When the Speaker disposes of the case or gives any judgment or gives any clarification, if we are not happy with that, we will go to the appellate court that is the High Court. Our next step when the Speaker gives any judgment or decision, if we are not happy with it, we will go to the High Court and if we are not happy with the judgment of the High Court, we will approach the Supreme Court. This case is not a small case, it will go to a higher court,” he said while adding therefore, the Congress is waiting for the judgment to be passed by the Speaker.

Congress to wait for outcome on amendment of 6th Schedule before taking a call on pulling out of NPP-led EC in KHADC: Pala

AICC joint secretary incharge Meghalaya Adv Mathew Anthony questioned the decision of the Assembly Speaker to consult with the Advocate General before giving his ruling on the matter.

“If the Speaker was so sure about his decision, why has the Speaker referred it to the AG again. If he is so sure about his decision then why would he need a legal opinion – that shows the weakness or the doubtfulness or fear of failure in the Speaker that if it goes for an appeal, he will have an unfavourable situation as he decided in haste. Had it been prudent for the Speaker to have taken the advice of the AG when the merger request came in before making the judgment to have approved the merger, so who’s at fault here? Let the law decide,” he said.

“We have suspended them on the ground under which they are disqualified to do such a thing and legal opinions are made. We have made a complaint to the Speaker and the Speaker suddenly referred the matter to the AG. He should have done that much before. He should have consulted the AG before making that decision of allowing the merger,” Mawthew stated.