Need to introduce three different bills

L Ibomcha Singh *

Assembly building at Chingmeirong, Imphal in February 2013 :: Pix - Bullu Raj

It has not been specified clearly in Manipur Legislative Assembly's Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business and even Indian Constitution that a bill, which has been reserved by the Governor for President's consideration after being passed by the House, can be or cannot be withdrawn.

But a common man's belief is that there should be no obstruction or hindrance when the Govt. proposes to reconsider or withdraw the bill in the House. Even if there is a decision resolved by the House it cannot be hindered or obstructed by any pressures from outside. No action can be taken up against Manipur Govt. and its MLAs by any Central authority for resolving to withdraw a bill in House.

In this situation, Manipur Govt. or the House can withdraw the controversial bill exercising the power which has been vested on General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 21.

The Act has been extended by Manipur General Clauses Act, 1996 Section 1(2) in Manipur. Even if the MRTV&MW Bill 2015 is not withdrawn, no one could obstruct or hinder when passing three new bills after discussion in the House because the new Bills will not be substantially identical with the pending Bill.

The below given three bills considered by All Party Committee on Inner Line Permit should be discussed.

(1) Nagaland Govt., while granting the ILP to outsiders used the term "Domestic Tourist" or "Entry Permit for Indian Nationals." Similarly, outsiders who would enter Mizoram are referred to as "Domestic Tourists." "Non-Indigenous Persons" have been used to those who would enter or stay temporarily in Mizoram while granting Inner Line Permit. Looking into it, a new bill should be passed for all outsiders who would enter Manipur to regulate or while granting permit to them. Manipur Govt. can so name the new Bill. What matters is issue of ILP should be there in the bill.

(2) To verify outsiders who are tenants/domestic/professional helpers, Manipur Govt. should pass a new bill like Sikkim which passed "Tenants and Domestic-Professional Helpers (Compulsory Verification) Act, 2014." Penalty can be added here as there is no law hindrance.

(3) For a reasonable restriction while selling, renting or leasing lands to non-permanent residents of Manipur, Govt. should reform "Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960" and restriction should be imposed until and unless permission is granted by Cabinet/Manipur Govt.

These three bills should be made differently. In future, a copy of Enactment/Act of other states or Union Territories should be attached as precedent while a bill has been transferred for consideration to the Governor.

Conference of All India Parliamentary and Legislative Secretaries of 2011 in Jaipur however, discussed that a Bill that have been reserved by the Governor for President's consideration cannot be withdrawn. But that was not turned into a law.

Therefore, now the best option left to Manipur Govt. is to introduce the three different Bills as proposed above, which are not substantially identical with the pending Bill, without going into the controversy of withdrawing the same.

But to request the Governor to recall his reservation for consideration of the President since the Manipur Legislative Assembly did not have the Legislative competence to pass the Bill as some provisions of the same come under Entry 81 of the Union List.

If the Governor agrees to the proposal, the House may reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof. This is the only remedy to come out of the present stalemate.