Imphal, March 18: While urging for immediate restoration of the Autonomous District Councils in the hill areas of Manipur, the Movement for Tribal People's Rights Manipur (MTPRM) has alleged that certain clauses of the proposed Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Bill 2008 which is slated to be introduced in the State Assembly on March 19 contradict the certain constitutional rights of tribal peoples.

A statement issued by the MTPRM strongly advocated that any District Council Act should be in consonance with the Constitutional provision under Article 371 (C) and the subsequent notification issued by the President of India in 1972. Decrying the manner under which the Act was formulated, it observed that the Act would prove counter productive if necessary rectifications are not made in the proposed Bill.

Section 5 of the proposed District Council Act 2008 which states that any person who is a resident of an autonomous district for not less than 15 years mentioned under clause (1) violates the autonomy of the tribal people as it violates the rights and principle of ST reserved Assembly constituencies, alleged the MTPRM while demanding that the same clause should be substituted with "a resident of that autonomous district residing for not less than 15 years in the case of unreserved Assembly constituency".

Section 20 of the Principle Act which restricts power of executive committee in certain matters by giving exceptions to seven subjects is uncalled for besides violating the principle of autonomy and therefore the same provision should be deleted.

Section 25 of the Principle Act which empowers the State Government to annul any resolution of the District Council should also be deleted as it amounts to imposition of Government's decision upon the tribal peoples.

Executive power under 11 Schedule of the Constitution should be specifically indicated with clarity as the power and functions of District Council as mentioned under Section 24 of the proposed Act is contrary to the schedule given in the annexure pertaining to 29 schedule, asserted MTPRM.

Financial assistance to District Council should not be limited from the consolidated fund of the State alone but should be allowed to receive funds from the central consolidated fund as is in the case of Panchayati Raj being implemented in the valley area, it noted.

Being the highest body of the hill people in the Assembly, the proposed Act should not be sent back to the Select Committee after approval of the Hill Areas Committee, maintained MTPRM.

In case the proposed Hill Areas District Council Bill/Act 2008 which allegedly reflects an ulterior motive to suppress the Constitutional rights of the tribal people is passed without the necessary rectifications, the State Govt and the Hill Areas Committee should be held accountable for any consequence resulting thereof.

Comment