Previous Mukul Sangma‑led government committed a blunder by inserting entry‑exit provisions only in the Rules, not in the principal Act. – Prestone Tynsong, Deputy Chief Minister
Shillong, Jan 3: The Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (MRSSAB) cannot be implemented as the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sought an alternative while pointing out the Bill’s “conflicts” with Central legislation governing inter-state issues, said Deputy Chief Minister in-charge Home (Police) Prestone Tynsong.
The state had sought setting up of facilitation centres at entry‑exit points under the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act, 2016 (MRSSA) for checking unabated influx into the state.
According to the Deputy Chief Minister, the state government proposed an amendment to the MRSSA, 2016 because it lacked provisions for setting up entry‑exit points.
“When the (government’s decision) was challenged in court, the court struck it down, prompting us to draft the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security (Amendment) Bill, 2020,” he said adding, “Former Governor Tathagata Roy forwarded the Bill to the Ministry of Home Affairs for examination. The MHA returned it, advising us to explore an alternative approach as the amendment conflicts with central legislation on inter‑state issues. If we were a state like Manipur, where movement does not involve passing through Assam, Barak Valley, Tripura, or Mizoram, the Bill might have secured assent. Since the amendment clashes with central laws, it cannot be implemented.”
“Once a bill fails to receive the Governor’s assent, it dies a natural death,” Tynsong maintained.
He informed, “Presently, we operate under the original MRSSA, 2016, which focuses solely on tenants and contains no provisions for entry‑exit points. Consequently, the court has quashed the government’s decision to establish such points.”
Further, the deputy chief minister pointed out that the previous Mukul Sangma‑led government committed a blunder by inserting entry‑exit provisions only in the Rules, not in the principal Act. This omission rendered the legislation incomplete and vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.
“The existing MRSSA, 2016, is incomplete; it would have been better titled a ‘Tenants Bill’ because it deals exclusively with tenant issues. The former administration attempted to mislead the public by adding entry‑exit clauses in subordinate legislation despite the Act’s silence on the matter,” he stated.
