Tura: The Meghalaya High Court on Monday rejected the petition of Hewingson Sangma, the former Secretary of the GHADC, who challenged the validity of an order issued by the chairperson of Lokayukta.
The Lokayukta chairperson’s order directed the Tura Sessions Court to take action against 11 accused former MDCs and officers. Hewingson had sought a stay on the proceedings in the Tura Court by filing a petition in the High Court. He argued that the amendments made to the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act in 2019 and 2021 were arbitrary and may have infringed on his rights.
Earlier, social activist Nilberth Ch Marak had approached the Lokayukta Court with corruption cases involving several former MDCs, contractors, and the GHADC secretary. After an extensive investigation, the Lokayukta deemed the charge-sheet sufficient for criminal proceedings in the Tura Sessions Court.
Regarding Sangma’s petition the Court stated, “The petition is in desperation and is somewhat akin to the devil citing the scriptures.”
It dismissed the petition, stating that the amendments to the Act did not violate any constitutional provisions. It clarified that Lokayukta Acts are enacted in various states to monitor public servants and take prompt action in case of wrongdoing.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s main objection was regarding an order passed by the Lokayukta chairperson instead of a bench. However, it found no merit in the petitioner’s contentions and emphasised that the State Assembly had the authority to amend the provisions of the original statute.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
“There was neither any impediment at the initial stage nor at any subsequent stage on the State Assembly to decide on the constitution and composition of the Lokayukta and merely because it had once indicated that the Lokayukta would be a body of persons would not stand in the way of the State Assembly altering its original position to provide for a one-member Lokayukta,” the Court observed.
The Court also acknowledged that a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Lokayukta, which resulted in additional names being implicated. The petitioner was provided notice and given an opportunity to respond orally. The Court concluded that even if there were procedural flaws, they caused no prejudice since the matter was already referred to the special court.
The Court regarded the petitioner’s challenge as an attempt to delay the proceedings and dismissed the petition with prejudice, holding the petitioner responsible for the consequences. The case was heard by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Judge W Diengdoh.
Also Read | Meghalaya: 3 found dead in IBBR premises after consuming wild mushroom