As resolved by the state Cabinet, the Governor of Manipur has summoned the 5th Session of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly at 11am on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 and a notification on this behalf has been issued by the secretary of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat. With the 4th Session lasting only about 11 minutes, many felt that this session must discuss the mayhem in Manipur thoroughly and find out ways to bring normalcy to the state. As this is the first sitting of the House in 2024, it will have to start with the Governor’s Address followed by the other agenda.
Some CSOs have also demanded that as the SoO agreement with UPF and KNO expires on February 29, 2024 and as the state Cabinet had also taken a decision to abrogate the agreement the matter must be considered by the House and a resolution adopted which must be passed on to the Union government. However, if the agreement for extension of the SoO agreement is to be signed on 29th there is no time for such a resolution as five clear days notice has to be given for any proposed resolutions by a member or three days time for a Government resolution {Rule 105 (3) and Rule 106 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Manipur Legislative Assembly}
Despite a clamour for a longish session by the people who believed that in a democracy all issues pertaining to the state must be discussed on the floor of the House thoroughly and resolutions adopted, it is unlikely that this session will be long and that every effort will be made to curtail it as short as possible as done in the preceding session. The Governor’s Address is normally followed by the Motion of Thanks which can be just after the address or on an appointed day or part of a day. There is past precedence where the discussion on the Motion of Thanks was held in the following session.
As no other business was taken up during the discussion for the Motion of Thanks, except for introduction of Bills {Rule 25(1)(a), it is expected that the discussion for Motion of Thanks may be taken up immediately so that no other business is taken up and on the same day the relevant Appropriation Bills were introduced. And despite the condition that two clear days was to be made available before the Motion for consideration and passing of Bills is moved (Rule 153), it is expected that as there are past precedence of Bills being considered and passed the next day, at least the Appropriation Bills relating to Supplementary Grants for 2023-24 and the Votes on Accounts for 2024-25 will be considered and passed either on the same day or at the most the next day.
If these two Bills are not passed there will be serious problems in the running of the government and generally not much discussion were held when these such Bills are considered; and it is only when the full budget was considered that detailed discussion was made. The above are assumptions based on the previous practices of the government and the desire to curtail the duration of the session so that meaningful discussion of the present situation is not brought out but it is up to the Business Advisory Committee to decide. As the BAC is dominated by the ruling party, it will go the way of the wishes of the government.
Thus it is presumed that this session will also not be long at the most it can be a two day session or can even be curtailed to one day session with the House agreeing to consider the two Bills on the same day that is the 28th. The House with only five Opposition members do not have the number to stop the wishes of the Government, despite arguing and the only option left will be to walk out from the House as a sign of protest. But one may have to see what the BAC decides but the hunch is it will also be a very short session.
The expectation of the people will be belied as members of the Legislative Assembly have to debate on the floor of the House and anything decided outside the House has no legal sanctity. Another issue is the complaint against the 10 Kuki-Chin MLAs before the Committee of Privileges and Ethics, the enquiry of which normally should have been completed within three months {Rule300 (2)(b)} unless there is sufficient cause for not completing the enquiry. The delay indicates that as the committee is packed with ruling parties members with only one from the opposition, the intent of the government is to delay the entrer exercise.
There is a general belief that a Member swore to protect the territorial integrity of the state which is absolute bunkum. A Member before entering office swore in Form VII B under Schedule 4 of the Constitution which says “..that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India....” (Emphasis added). One is shocked to hear even MLAs and ex-MLAs repeatedly mentioning that they swore to protect the territorial integrity of Manipur which indicate the incompetency of our members unfortunately, indicating that they are not even fully aware of what they have put their signature upon.
The clamour for disqualification is most unlikely as disqualification can only be for violation of the conditions laid down in the 10th Schedule of the Constitution and for indulging in corrupt practices as laid down in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The maximum penalty that may be imposed is suspension for a period of time, which will be challenged before the Court of law. In fact any recommendation made by the Committee will be subject to challenge before the law Court and anything which is recommended in excess of what is prescribed by law will be quashed.
The 10 MLAs will not be able to attend the session and they will seek leave of absence and even if they do not seek leave of absence, hardly anything can be done. The tamasha surrounding the complaint is surprising as the denouement was unclear to most people and all was expecting the moon; unfortunately. We are a democratic country and the rule of law is supreme and what is not prescribed under the law cannot be made up and it can only be done by an Act of the Legislature or by the Supreme Court.
Demanding a separate state is not anti-national and many MLAs have demanded in other states with some having been granted. None have been branded as anti-national. The only condition that very lawful demand must be through peaceful means and not through violent acts like it is in Manipur where the demand for Separate Administration is accompanied by violent means leading to loss of life, liberty and property.
Manipur has become a very emotional state where the subjects feels that emotion can move the earth which unfortunately is not true and what is required is cool thinking to understand the problem and try to solve it. The machinations to belittle the House so that nothing is discussed on its floor and the desire to stifle alternate voices will in the long run be most damaging to the state. And the damage it has caused may take decades to recover much to the detriment to the Manipuri society. And those indulging may be hounded after they lost power as none is unlikely to be in power for infinity.
(The views expressed are personal)
