Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent development, the Meghalaya High Court has dismissed a special motion aimed at initiating a discussion on a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report during this year's budget session. The motion, put forth by Adelbert Nongrum, a legislator from the Voice of the People Party (VPP), was rejected by Assembly Speaker Thomas A Sangma.

Nongrum's motion sought to address key findings outlined in the CAG report pertaining to the social and economic sectors for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, for Meghalaya. However, the Speaker's decision to deny the motion prompted Nongrum to challenge it in court.

In delivering the verdict, Justice HS Thangkhiew upheld the Speaker's authority, stating that “The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the House and its spokesman and representative upon all occasions. He is the interpreter of its rules and procedure, and is invested with the power to control and regulate the course of debate and to maintain order.”

The petitioner, represented by Advocate P. Yobin, contending that the Speaker's action infringed upon the petitioner's rights as guaranteed under Article 194(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner's counsel emphasised that no rule within the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly's procedures prohibited discussion on a CAG report. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted the denial of reconsideration by the Speaker despite Rule 130A providing precedence to Special Motions over other matters.

Contrary to the petitioner's stance, the Advocate General A. Kumar, appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposed the arguments. He asserted that the petitioner's plea sought to regulate the legislature's procedure through judicial intervention, contravening Article 212 of the Constitution. It was further emphasised that the Speaker's decision, made within the House's business, was beyond the court's purview.

The respondent further elucidated that the Speaker's decision stemmed from the report still under scrutiny before the Committee on Public Accounts, adhering to Rule 241 of the Assembly's rules.

The court scrutinised the maintainability of the petition, acknowledging the petitioner's right to speech under Article 194(1), it underscored the absence of palpable denial of rights and found the Speaker's decision procedurally sound and constitutionally valid.

The court noted that “the business transacted and the validity of proceedings after the resumption of sittings of the House pursuant to the direction of the Speaker cannot be inquired by the courts. This follows the fundamental principle that it is the right of each House of the legislature to be the sole Judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings so as to be immune from challenge before a court of law.”

“the procedural irregularities cannot be used by the court to undo or vitiate what happens within the four walls of the legislature,” the court further observed.

Consequently, the court concluded that the Speaker's decision, albeit concerning a matter of grave public importance, did not warrant judicial review under Article 212. Thus, the petition was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: Adelbert Nongrum v Speaker, Meghalaya Legislative Assembly [WP(C) No. 99 of 2024]