The Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) has strongly questioned the remarks made by Meghalaya Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong regarding the Meghalaya Residents Safety and Security (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (MRSSA). The student body said the Deputy Chief Minister’s claims about the Bill conflicting with central laws are misleading and unfair.
Tynsong had earlier stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) objected to the MRSSA Amendment Bill on the grounds that it clashed with national laws. The main objection, he said, was related to the proposal to set up entry-exit points to monitor people entering the state.
KSU general secretary Donald V. Thabah rejected this view. He said the Bill only aims to regulate movement into the state, similar to the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system already operating in Nagaland, Mizoram and Manipur. He questioned why Meghalaya’s proposal should be treated differently.
According to Thabah, the argument that MRSSA contradicts central law “does not hold water”, as ILP has already been cleared and implemented in other North-Eastern states. He said the purpose of the MRSSA Amendment Bill is to check illegal immigration and protect indigenous communities.
The MRSSA Amendment Bill was framed to allow the government to set up Facilitation Centres, commonly referred to as entry-exit points, to register and verify people entering Meghalaya. However, the MHA had raised legal concerns and suggested alternative measures instead of approving the amendment.
Tynsong also said that the present law enacted in 2016 does not include entry-exit provisions and therefore required amendment. He added that the Bill returned by the MHA may face legal hurdles if enforced.
The KSU, however, has maintained that stronger safeguards are necessary to protect the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo communities. Thabah pointed out that the Centre had approved ILP for Manipur in 2019, which shows that special protective systems are allowed under India’s federal structure.
He also disagreed with Tynsong’s remark that Meghalaya’s status as a transit state makes implementation difficult. Thabah said Nagaland is also a transit route but has successfully enforced ILP.
Earlier, Tynsong had said the earlier Congress-led government erred by including entry-exit provisions in the rules instead of the main Act. He stated that the present law remains incomplete and vulnerable to legal challenges.