Article 371-C gave Manipur a Hill Areas Committee (HAC) with specific responsibilities to make laws for the administration of Hill Areas in partnership with the State government and Assembly. This exposition is to inform the tribal people in the Hill Areas that regardless of obstructions or delaying tactics that may be mounted against legislations initiated by HAC, the constitutional scheme for administration of Hill Areas given by Article 371-C has sufficient provisions to ensure that laws for administration of Hill Areas are made in the manner as provided in the Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972.
The reasons for the positive outlook are as follows:-
(1) The MLAs elected from the Hill Areas are charged with the work of conceptualisation, drafting of Bills for legislation of laws for Hill Areas on any Scheduled Matters (Read paragraph 4(1), (2), (3) and the Second Schedule of Presidential Order of 1972 also known as the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972). Legislation involves drafting, debating, amending, and voting on bills (proposed laws), and that’s the job given to HAC for making laws in partnership with the State government on specified Scheduled Matters for Hill Areas.
(2) In the process of legislation initiated by HAC recommending a Bill for Hill Areas by a resolution to the State government, the council (read as State Cabinet) under Rule 12-A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972 has to “normally give effect to the recommendation of the Hill Areas Committee under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972”. Rule 12-A ibid gives an option to the council i.e. – “but if the Council is of the opinion that it would not be expedient to do so or that the Hill Areas Committee was not competent to make any such recommendations, the matter shall be referred to the Governor whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the Council and action shall be taken accordingly”.
Two things could happen; the Governor disagree with the opinion of the council, then the HAC recommended Bill is to be tabled by the State government in the Assembly and would go through the process of legislation. On the other hand, the Governor could agree with the opinion of the council in which case the Bill stands dropped, but it would not prevent the HAC from recommending another version of a Bill for Hill Areas. The procedure does not give the option to the State government for substituting its own version ignoring the HAC recommended Bill.
(3) In the composition of the council of ministers in Manipur, there have always been four ministers from the Hill Areas who are also members of the HAC and would have been party to the resolution recommending the HAC-drafted Bill to the State government. Their presence in the council would allow explanation and clarification of any doubts regarding the HAC-recommended Bill. In case there is a difference in opinion in the council, they can ask for their dissent to be recorded in the minutes of the cabinet meeting, ensuring transparency and accountability. Their presence is the greatest strength for the people in Hill Areas, and if the ministers from Hill Areas are not able to convince their Cabinet colleagues, they should resign from the Cabinet, and the people from Hill Areas should hold them accountable.
(4) The HAC Bill, once recommended by a resolution to the State government, does not expire till its logical conclusion as per procedures prescribed in the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur (1972) for the State government and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, 1964, in respect of the Assembly. Over and above this, there is the provision for seeking the intervention of the Governor or President. The HAC Bill would not lapse or expire with the change in State government or the constitution of a new Assembly following a general election. Hence, it is the duty of the HAC and its successors to follow up the legislations recommended to the State government in case the HAC recommended Bill is kept pending by the State government and also seek intervention of the Governor if the matter is not referred to him (paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order of 1972 and rule 12-A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972).
(5) When the State government “normally gives effect to the recommendation of the Hill Areas Committee” and tables the HAC recommended Bill in the Assembly (as provided under paragraph 4(2) of the Presidential Order of 1972 for consideration and report; and rule 140 with the member-in-charge making the following motion – “That it be referred to the Hill Areas Committee”), the HAC recommended Bill would go through the process of consideration of the tabled Bill and make its report (rule 157-A(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, 1964); and recommendation (paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order of 1972) to the Assembly. This process and procedure enable the HAC to initiate the Bill and thereafter take into consideration any advice for amendments suggested by the State government in its consideration when the Bill is referred to it by the member-in-charge. At this stage, the concerns and suggestions made by the State government, formally or informally, would have an opportunity of being incorporated in the Bill by the HAC, and these would be reported and recommended by it to the Assembly.
(6) When the report and recommendations of HAC are made to the Assembly, but the Bill as reported by the HAC in its report is passed by the Assembly in a form which is substantially different from that as reported by the Hill Areas Committee, or is rejected by the Assembly, the Speaker has been given a duty to submit the matter in its entirety to the Governor. Rule 157A(1) has visualised this scenario as follows: “When a Bill as reported by the Areas Committee is not passed by the Assembly in the form in which it has been reported but is passed in a form which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is substantially different from that as reported by the Hill Areas Committee, or is rejected by the Assembly, the Speaker shall submit to the Governor;
“(a) in any case where the Bill has been passed by the Assembly in a substantially different form, the Bill as passed by the Assembly together with the Bill as reported by the Hill Areas Committee.
(b) in any case where the Bill is rejected by the Assembly, the Bill as reported by the Hill Areas.
Committee.
Further, Rule 157A(2) of the Rule ibid visualises another scenario i.e.;
“(2) When a Bill is not approved by the Hill Areas Committee but is passed by the Assembly, the Speaker shall submit to the Governor the Bill as passed by the Assembly together with the report of the Hill Areas Committee.”
There is another role for the Governor under Rule 157A(3) of Rule ibid i.e.;
“(3) The Governor shall, as soon as possible after the submission to him of the Bill, return the Bill to the Assembly with a message recommending either that the Bill be withdrawn or that it be passed in the form in which it has been reported by the Hill Areas Committee or in the form in which it has been passed by the Assembly. The message received from the Governor shall be reported by the Speaker to the Assembly, and accordingly the Bill shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, or as the case may be, deemed to have been passed by the Assembly in the form recommended by the Governor”.
The Governor has the following options:-
Return the Bill to the Assembly with a message recommending either that –
(a) the Bill be withdrawn, or
(b) the Bill be passed in the form in which it has been reported by the Hill Areas Committee, or
(c) the Bill be passed in the form in which it has been passed by the Assembly.
And the message received from the Governor shall be reported by the Speaker to the Assembly, and accordingly the Bill shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, or as the case may be, deemed to have been passed by the Assembly in the form recommended by the Governor. (Rule 12-A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972; rule 139, 140, 157-A (1), (2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, 1964; paragraph 9 of the Presidential Order of 1972; and Article 371-C(2) giving special responsibilities to the Governor).
(To be continued)
Ngaranmi Shimray
New Delhi
Wednesday, March 4, 2026