Shillong,Feb 19: KHADC chief executive member (CEM) HS Shylla has praised the chief minister Conrad K Sangma for admitting that the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security Act (MRSSA), 2016 is “toothless”.

He was referring to the recent statement made by the chief minister that the entry-exit point is an infrastructure and the Inner Line Permit (ILP) is the mechanism to check influx and illegal immigration.

“The chief minister has understood that the MRSSA, 2016 passed by the then Mukul Sangma-led Congress government is atoothless law,” Shylla told reporters here on Tuesday.

Reiterating that implementation of the Inner Line Permit (ILP) is the need of the hour; he said the objective of the ILP is to prevent permanent settlement by other Indian nationals because the real issue faced by the state is the inter-state influx.

“The chief minister, who was hailed to be a hero, has now become a zero after the recent announcement of the BJP chief Amit Shah that his party would bring back the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB),” Shylla said.

He said if the ILP is implemented, the people of the state will no longer have to feel insecure in their own land.

Meanwhile, the KHADC chief said the Council will file a writ petition before the Supreme Court against the state government to challenge its stand that the Bill related to the implementation of the ILP is “outside the legislative competency of the Council”, within this week.

District Council Affairs (DCA) Deputy Secretary W Rapthap in his letter to the KHADC on February 4, had stated – “…it is opined that the Regulation namely the KHAD (As adapted from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873) Regulation, 2018 passed by the District Council on October 26, 2019 is outside the legislative competency of District Council as it does not fall under any of the law making powers as provided under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.”

He said the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 is one of the many laws listed under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District (Application of Laws) Regulation, 1952, which according to the Supreme Court’s ruling ‘still continues to operate’.

Shylla said the ruling of the Supreme Court was based on the appeal filed by the then Meghalaya government against the order of the High Court with regards to a petition challenging the validity of the Regulation, 1952 promulgated by the Governor of Assam under paragraph 19 (1)(b) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.

“This clearly shows that the present state government is not respecting the ruling of the Supreme Court. It also reflect that the ministers and officials during the year 1972 are much smarters that the present ones,” he said.

When asked, Shylla said if the new CEM dare to withdraw the petition, it will only show that he/she is a “puppet” of someone else and has no respect for the autonomous of the district council.