The swearing-in of Mr Lapang was boycotted by a shocked MPA, which has the support of 31 MLAs in the 60-member House.

Earlier, in the morning, 30 MPA legislators, including NCP leader Purno A Sangma, presented themselves before the Governor and asked to be allowed to form the government. They were also armed with a letter of support from former Chief Minister EK Mawlong (UDP) who could not accompany the MPA MLAs due to ill health.

Except Mr Lapang, no other minister was sworn in. He, however, expressed confidence of being able to prove his majority on the floor of the House within ten days.

"Being the leader of the single largest party, I was invited to form the government. I will prove my majority on the floor of the House in ten days," Mr Lapang said.

The swearing-in was attended by all the Congress legislators, although none of the three Independent legislators supporting Mr Lapang was seen during the oath-taking ceremony.

There were widespread rumours during the day that three key members of MPA, including one from KHNAM and two from HSPDP, had switched over to the Congress camp after being lured with attractive ministerial berths. MPA, however, rejected it as mere speculation.

"This type of rumour is absolute nonsense. All 31 members are still with us and will remain so. It is only a misinformation campaign by Congress. We are committed to seeing that MPA which has the majority forms the government," MPA spokesman Bindo M Lanong told The Shillong Times on Monday.

KHNAM president Paul Lyngdoh said there was no question of his coming out of the Alliance."We would remain with MPA for the next five years and maybe for more time if the people want this Alliance to continue," Mr Lyngdoh said.

Independent legislator Donkupar Massar also asserted that he would remain with MPA.

Meanwhile, MPA has decided to file a petition at the Supreme Court on Tuesday over the Governor's decision to invite Congress to form the government.

NCP general secretary Purno Agitok Sangma said the writ petition would be filed by MPA secretary Conrad Kongkal Sangma, adding, "Our lawyer boarded a flight to Dehli on Monday evening."

"We are expecting the Supreme Court to give its decision by Tuesday evening, declaring this decision of the Governor as null and void," Mr Sangma said.

He also said Dr Sidhu's decision (to invite Congress) was a murder of democracy.

Conrad Kongkal Sangma, in a press note issued here, also said the decision of the Governor was "unconstitutional."

According to Bindo M Lanong, MPA, which has already consulted Supreme Court lawyers, will file the petition based on the earlier apex court ruling in the Nitish Kumar versus Government of India case of 2006.

"The Governor has derailed democracy in the State. We have reposed our faith in him, but he has let us down by choosing to invite Congress to form the government. We will defeat Mr Lapang's government on the floor of the House and that itself will be an embarrassment to the Governor," Mr Lanong asserted.

Referring to the Nitish Kumar versus Government of India case, Mr Lanong said the Supreme Court had declared as null and void the Bihar Governor's action in inviting Lalu Prasad Yadav to form his minority government since the Sarkaria Commission report had made it clear that the Governor could invite the single largest party only if no other groups came forward to stake claim to form the government.

Meanwhile, Dr Sidhu has justified his action, stating that there was nothing wrong in asking the single largest party to form the government since the non-Congress alliance had no pre-poll alliance.

Talking to mediapersons after the swearing-in ceremony, the Governor said his decision to invite Congress to form the government was made after taking legal advice.

Soon after meeting the Governor on Monday morning, MPA leader Dr Donkupar Roy told reporters that the non-Congress alliance had showed to the Governor that MPA had the majority among the 59 legislators.

On Sunday, HSPDP president Hoping Stone Lyngdoh reportedly gave AICC leaders Margaret Alva and Major (Retd.) Ved Prakash the cold shoulder when they went to his residence to invite him to be part of the proposed Congress-led Government in the State. Embarrassed, both the Congress leaders reportedly left the scene in a huff.

Hynniewtrep National Youth Front (HNYF) and Garo Students' Union (Khasi Hills Zone) on Monday condemned the decision of the Governor to invite Congress to form the government as it was in a minority.

Talking to The Shillong Times, HNYF political secretary Sadon K Blah argued that the Governor, according to Sarkaria Commission, should ask MPA to form the government because the Alliance has the support of majority of the legisaltors.

"Unfortunately, the Governor's decision to invite Mr Lapang to form the government indicates his partiality. By allowing Mr Lapang to prove his majority within ten days, the Governor has allowed Congress to indulge in horse-trading," Mr Blah said.

He also said, "We want change as people want change. People have been fed up with Congress rule for over three decades with little development on all fronts'.

Mr Blah expressed fears that there would be rampant corruption in the State if Congress remains in power.

"We know that Congress is pro-uranium mining, pro-corruption and pro-power deal, while other issues like border disputes, international and inter-states, are put aside," he added.

GSU's Khasi Hills president Sanjeev M Sangma said, "We will not be happy at all if Congress comes back to power. Congress has ruled the State for 25 years but there has been no development at all."

The GSU leader , however, expressed faith in MPA, saying if the Alliance ruled the State development would take place in Mghalaya. "We appreciate the initiative taken by MPA and we expect development," Mr Sangma.

Khasi student body KSU had earlier expressed support to MPA.

SHILLONG: State Governor Dr SS Sidhu on Monday officially appointed legislator Hoping Stone Lyngdoh (HSPDP) as the pro tem Speaker of the 8th State Legislative Assembly to conduct a swearing-in ceremony for all the newly-elected MLAs.

Mr Lyngdoh is one of the oldest legislators to complete over fifty years as public representative. A veteran regional leader since statehood of Meghalaya, he has never lost a single election. The oath-taking ceremony for all the 59 elected legislators will be held on Tuesday. The pro tem Speaker will preside over the ceremony, while the oath will be administered by Governor Dr Sidhu.

NCP general secretary Purno Agitok Sangma resigned from the Lok Sabha on Monday.

Informing this, Mr Sangma said he had already faxed his resignation letter to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. "I am here to stay," Mr Sangma said, claiming that he had done enough for the country and that he now wanted to work for development of the State.

SHILLONG: Shock, surprise and consternation is what the people of Meghalaya are going through. By setting aside a coalition of parties and independents that constitute a majority, Governor SS Sidhu has proved to be a lackey of the Congress High Command.

Commenting on the swearing in of a yet another Congress government Dr Apurba Baruah, political scientist, NEHU says, "The Congress party has destablised Meghalaya since its inception. In 1972 when the regional parties had 47 seats the Congress with just 9 seats effected a split in the APHLC as soon as emergency was declared and formed a government. The story is repeated with every assembly election". Baruah further observed that what the Governor has done in swearing in a minority government is improper. "Even if Governors are party loyalists prior to their appointment, they should remain non-partisan and neutral administrators once they become governors", Baruah added.

Political analyst, Dr Rajesh Dev feels that as long as Governors are party-men they cannot maintain constitutional dignity nor act with constitutional propriety. "It is indeed a sad commentary on Meghalaya politics that this Acting Governor is perpetuating political corruption by putting his stamp of approval to the beginning of a horse trading exercise", Dev stated.

Academic, Dr Prasenjit Biswas says, "It is bad enough that Meghalaya does not have its own Governor but I am aghast at the way in which this minority government is sworn in. Sidhu has imported the culture of Manipur where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is enforced with such high-handedness. To him the appointment of a government which the dictators in Delhi will like is a very small thing. He has flouted the common good of the people of Manipur. Now he is replicating it in Meghalaya. The action of the Governor is indefensible".

Legal experts are of the opinion that in swearing in a minority government, Governor SS Sidhu has violated the provisions of the Sarkaria Commission which specifically deals with situations where no single party obtains absolute majority. Para 4.11.04 of the Report provides the order of preference which the Governor should follow in swearing in a Chief Minister. The order of preference is (1) an alliance of parties formed prior to elections (2) the single largest party staking claim to form government with the support of others including ‘independents’ (3) a post electoral coalition of parties with all partners in the coalition joining the government (4) a post electoral alliance of parties with some parties in alliance forming a government and the remaining supporting the government from outside.

In the instant case, constituents of the Meghalaya Progressive Alliance (MPA) had met the Governor with a list of 31 names and paraded them physically. They fulfil the third criterion. On what grounds then has the leader of the Congress Legislature Party been sworn in as Chief Minister with a list of only 28 MLAs? This is the question that the man on the street is asking.

The Supreme Court ruling on the Rameshwar Prasad case (2006) 2 SCCL, of Bihar where the Governor dissolved the Bihar Assembly even before it was constituted merely because no single party could obtain majority, observes that the role of governor has come in for considerable criticism on grounds that some governors have failed to display the qualities of impartiality expected of them. 

The Sarkaria Commission Report noted that this can be traced to the fact that a Governor is appointed by and holds office during the pleasure of the President, which is in effect the Union Council of Ministers or the ruling Government, in this case the UPA.

Instead of allowing their actions to be dictated by the suggested list of instructions considered by the Constituent Assembly which includes value-based standards that are expected of a governor in discharging his duties vis-à-vis appointment of chief minister after ascertaining a "stable majority" and appointment of a Council of Ministers who will best be in a position to command the confidence of the legislature, most Governors act like ruling party stooges. These instructions were kept as Schedules to the Constitution because the Constituent Assembly felt they should not be put into the body of Constitutions as they were conventions rather than rules.

The framers of the Constitution did not envisage that this country would have Governors who were moré loyal to the ruling party than to the spirit of the Constitution. Regarding the appointment of CM, the Sarkaria Commission says, "In case of a fractured mandate, a step by step approach is recommended. The Governor while going through the process of selection as described, should select a leader who, in his judgment is most likely to command a majority in the Assembly". The question now is whether Mr DD Lapang can command a majority when he only has 28 MLAs. Or is the Governor merely giving him time to purchase more MLAs before he proves his strength in the House?

Meghalaya’s fractured verdict will ultimately empower the independents to raise their prices sky high. Stories that some independents have been offered Rs 5 crores plus a ministerial berth are doing the rounds. Where will all this money come from? From the state treasury of course, and from development funds. One analyst has rightly pointed out that in Meghalaya it is not the tribals who decide which government comes to power. It is the non-tribal business lobby that makes the final decision.

Question: Who said the following: (a) "The House is becoming a place of tamasha. You are working overtime to finish democracy. It is a farce." (b) "Is not disruption of proceedings during the Question Hour a breach of privilege of individual members who await answers to admitted starred questions, and supplementary questions?"

Answer: No guesses, it’s the Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee and his counterpart in the Rajya Sabha Vice President and Chairman Hamid Ansari. Both clearly exasperated over the conduct of our Right Honourables in the two Houses of Parliament.

But unlike the past when these reprimands were dismissed out of hand, this time round it has set our MPs to give serious thought, deliberate and debate on the issue and come out with their recommendations on how to end the fast deteriorating situation. More so against the backdrop of Ansari taking the unprecedented step of referring a complaint by a group of seven MPs belonging to the UPA to the Committee of Privileges on Thursday last. Their grouse was that they could not "speak and ask supplementaries" during Question Hour allegedly because some Opposition MPs did not allow the House to function. Pertinently, he raised the question whether those disrupting the House breach the privilege of those MPs scheduled to ask questions during that period.

Under Rule 203 of the Rules and Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, the Chairman has the power to "refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report." Which then would have to examine, investigate and then submit a report on the matter. It is another matter that the cornered MPs apologized and all was forgiven.

However, Ansari’s well-intended extraordinary action may not have any salutary immediate effect given that MPs have still to codify their privileges. True, technically speaking, adjournment, disturbances, hungama, raising pandemonium and rushing into the well of the House constitutes breach of privilege. However, the question can be argued both ways. Some parliamentary experts assert that nothing technically stops the Chair from taking disciplinary action, yet not much happens in terms of handing out punishment. Primarily because the rules are not enforced by the Presiding Officers.

Invariably, both the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman neither name nor ask an MP or MPs disrupting the proceedings to withdraw from the House. And when the recalcitrant MP refuses to do so seldom are Marshals summoned. The last time was on 22 July 1998 when the Rashtriya Janata Party MP Anand Mohan disrupted the proceedings in the Lok Sabha, refusing to heed the Speaker's call for silence and was then ordered to be evicted from the House.

On the obverse not a few feel that the Chair should also not lose sight of the fact that members act to highlight issues of great national importance on their leaders' instructions or to raise matters dear to the aam aadmi in their constituency. Also, if there is a large majority of members, which stood up and disrupted the House, would it be a matter for the privileges committee? More important, isn’t preserving the sanctity of Parliament as the highest democratic forum everyone’s responsibility?

However, Ansari is not being guided by any whims. Nor is he cracking the whip during the time the Vice-President normally presides ever the Rajya Sabha, in his dual role as Chairman. He is doing so simply because the Question Hour is the crucial hyphen that links the Government to Parliament. It provides for daily and continuing accountability of the Executive to the Legislature. Wherein the Government through its Ministers is duty-bound to answer questions.

Any member in either House can put a question to the Prime Minister or any other Minister and demand an honest answer. Making question time the most powerful weapon available to the MPs, and more especially the Opposition, to keep the Government on a tight leash. It is based on the fundamental right to information enshrined in the Constitution, via questions.

Mercifully, the rules of the House ensure that the Government is well and truly in the dock and cannot, therefore, avoid questions and conveniently escape. Perhaps, this Hour more than any other time of the House serves as a barometer of Governmental efficiency and performance at the macro level and that of a Minister at the micro level. When they are required to answer queries relating to matters of public importance and if the administrative responsibility reposed in them.

Sadly over the years, with confrontationalist politics and politically motivated bashing becoming the raging cult, our Right Honourables are showing less and less interest in what they should be doing ---- law making. Bringing things to such a pass that the pursuit of power, pelf and patronage is replacing all else.

The gradual decline in the number of sittings underscores it all. The Rajya Sabha, which had an annual average of 90.5 sittings in 1952-61, came down to 71.3 in 1992-2001 — a decline of 20 per cent. The comparative figures for the Lok Sabha are 124.2 and 81.0 — a decline of 34 per cent. The State Assemblies are worse off, with the average now being in the range of 3 to 20 sittings every year.

The annual average of the Bills passed by Parliament has come down from 68 in 1952-61 to 49.9 in 1992-2001. Nearly 23 per cent of MPs elected in 2004 had criminal cases registered against them and over half of these are these that could lead to imprisonment for five years or more. The situation is worse in the case of MLAs.

Shockingly, both the Houses lost over 130 hours of time (cost of each minute being Rs 26,000) due to repeated uproar and pandemonium which has cost the tax payer over Rs 20 crore last year. Up till now the 14th Lok Sabha, has lost 21 per cent of the time due to adjournments.

Recall in 2001 an all-India conference on Discipline and Decorum in Parliament and State Legislatures was convened by the then Lok Sabha Speaker Balyogi. The 350-strong jamboree included the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Chief Ministers, Parliamentary Affairs Ministers, Party leaders and Chief Whips who agreed to evolve a code of conduct and make each other answerable.

Alas, all the suggestions mooted therein were still-born. Only adding to the piling trivia heard before. Recall, a similar conference held in 1992 too did not yield any result. Understandably, in today’s media is the massage age where everything is factored. If governance is all about ‘feeling good’ then politics is all about ‘sounding good.’ Asserted an MP, "In a country where ethics and politics are two ends of a spectrum, one fails to comprehend how a Presiding Officer’s anguish or sending a matter to the Privileges Committee can stem the growing ‘rot of moral decay’ in our polity.

"Bluntly, it means that Parliament in its collective wisdom has tacitly decided to throw ethics to the dogs", stated a senior old-timer. "Can a code of conduct or rules, for instance, tame our politicians who increasingly call the shots." Parliament and the State Assemblies have been vandalized as never before. Pandemonium, dharnas and adjournments have become their hallmark: Reducing these buildings, which house the aspirations of the people, to perspiration and one-upmanship. Turning them into market places where leaders are bought and sold like prize bulls with the winner taking it all.

In sum, even as one applauds the initiatives of the two Presiding Officers, much still remains to be done. It is high time our Right Honourables give serious thought to rectifying all the scandalous distortions that have seeped in and urgently work for a change. Ansari and Chatterjee have shown the way. Will our jan sevaks cooperate with them to make Parliament truly India’s high temple of democracy? --- INFA

The crime statistics released by the Union Home Ministry for 2004-05 (for 10 months) reveal that 43,289 men, women and children were kidnapped, and 56,982 were done to death, 11,206 were released after paying ransom, and what happened to the rest, nobody really knows. Such macabre happenings have puzzled the police and social scientist. Criminologists are baffled with the rising trends, and are unable to offer plausible explanation.

The debate centres round: should kidnappers be awarded capital punishment? This question is being asked by an outraged citizenry with increasing frequency as more and more kidnappings and abductions continue to take place in the country. As the number of unresolved cases grows, the demand for death penalty too acquires greater intensity.

Surprisingly, not many are aware that there is a law which provides death penalty for those who kidnap and demand ransom. But the existence of the law on the statute book seems to have made little difference. On May 22, 1993, Parliament adopted a bill strengthening the existing laws on kidnapping. The new law made kidnapping for ransom a crime punishable with death or life imprisonment. Earlier, there were no separate provisions for dealing with kidnapping for ransom. Abduction was punishable by a 10-year sentence or fine. The new law makes kidnapping for ransom a cognisable, non-bailable offence with the trial to be held in session’s court.

According to Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), "whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall be liable to fine."

In addition to this amendment, a new section has also been added to Section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code which specifically deals with persons who associate themselves with kidnappers or are aware of the crime. The Code makes it clear that "every person aware of the commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit any offence punishable under any other section of the IPC, shall be in the absence of any reasonable excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie upon the person so aware, forthwith give information to the nearest magistrate or police officer of such commission or such intention."

Yet, not many have confidence in law, especially those who have taken to it as a profession. "What has the amendment of the law achieved? If the rising number of kidnapping cases, especially in recent years, is taken as criterion, then it is obvious that even the amended law has made very little difference," says Usha Krishnamurthy, senior advocate in the Supreme Court.

The argument that death penalty alone is the answer is scoffed at by sociologists as well. Ashish Nandy says death penalty for kidnapping for ransom makes "very little sense" to him. "What we are witnessing is a standard urban crime situation. Our city life has become a melting pot. The situation is like drug-trafficking. Has death penalty made any difference to those who indulge is drug trafficking?" he asks.

So far, the judges have awarded kidnappers death penalty in rarest of rare cases. For example, in Delhi, it was only because of public hue and cry that the notorious kidnappers Ranga and Billa were actually hanged for death long time ago. Since then, not a single person has been hanged to death for kidnapping. As Krishnamurthy observes: "The Indian judicial system provides for death penalty in very rare cases. Normally death sentence is given to a person who commits a gruesome murder. Even in such cases normally life imprisonment is the maximum punishment. Death penalty is also provided in cases related to treason and waging a war against the state. Death penalty for kidnapping for ransom? No way!"

Such anomalies annoy even the police. The former Delhi Police Commissioner M.B. Kaushal wants speedy trials and feels that the law has to be tough with kidnappers. "Even when we go to court after solving the case, it takes anywhere between five to ten years for a verdict. Many times, kidnappers are let off on bail and they intimidate the victims to remain silent. Many terrorised victims then withdraw cases as well. I feel that there should be a minimum deterrent punishment. Of course the maximum penalty should be death," he says.

Kaushal has a point. Statistics with the Delhi police reveal that acquittal rate is as high as 80 per cent. Besides one out of three cases that are reported since 1995 are still pending trial. Meantime the main accused in these cases are all on bail. The extent of delay in trial can be gauged from the fact that in spite of the fact 830 cases of kidnapping took place in 1996, only four accused have been convicted so far. Similarly, in 1997, out of 941 cases, accused in only six cases have been convicted.

On the other hand, those who feel that death penalty is the only answer for cases relating to kidnapping for ransom feel that even one death sentence will send a signal to potential kidnappers. As Shubhra Sanyal Ghosh, faculty member, National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, explains, "India is a welfare state unlike the West Asian countries. The concept of death penalty, even though legal, is rarely put into practice. On the other hand, the redressal system for legal justice is weak and very time consuming. Death penalty and dispensation of quicker justice by the judicial system should send a powerful message to kidnappers who are out to make quick money."

M.B. Kapoor, former principal of Modern School, New Delhi, could not agree more. "What is the other remedy?" he asks. "Criminals have a notion that they can get away with the kidnapping. Both our police and judiciary should be blamed for this belief. At least, by awarding death penalty for gruesome murders of kidnapped children, the judiciary will be sending a message that such crimes will not be tolerated in our society," Kapoor says forcefully.

While death penalty may send a message to potential kidnappers, what is really needed is a speedy and effective judicial system along with an equally competent police. Perhaps, then, innocent children like Rashi Kukreja or Ajay Gupta will not be sacrificed at the altar of greed. INAV

Sir,

Apropos the editorial 'Gorkha threat intensifies" (ST, Feb 27), in the write-up, you have downrightly undermined the democratic movement of the Gorkhas, who want their voice heard. It was said that creation of Gorkha state would destabilize Eastern India. The demand for a separate Gorkha State for the hilly people, under the Constitution of India, first gained prominence in the late eighties. The demand was a result of apathetic and indifferent attitude of the West Bengal government towards the hill region and its people. Basic amenities and infrastructure such as road, health care, education in the hills, even today is in a dismal state. The youths from the hills are denied fair representations in the employment avenues. Gorkhas living across the nation are aware of the step-motherly attitude of the state government, and therefore, are lending voices to the movement for a separate state. Demands of Gorkha people are not dissimilar to those made by people of the North- East for creation of separate states of their own for better governance and allround development. Recently created states: Uttarakhand, Chattisgarh, and Jharkhand were also a result of simial discontentment.

Talking about destabilising Eastern India, the write-up advised to take note of the patronage provided to millions of Bangladeshis by the West Bengal government to keep them as its vote bank. Central intelligence agencies, in a recent report submitted to the centre, have termed concentration of Bangladeshis in the districts of West Bengal along the Indo- Bangladesh border as a potential threat to the nation's stability. The west Bengal government is getting autocratic by the day. Recent killings of people by the state's forces in Singur and Nandigram bear testimony to this fact. When the members of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha were observing fast unto death, state's urban development minister called Gorkhas "outsiders" in Siliguri. This is ironic because Siliguri falls within Darjeeling district. Like it did in Nandigram , the west Bengal government seems bent on crushing the democratic movement of Gorkhas. Gorkhas cannot accept the Sixth Schedule status in lieu of a separate state, as more than 70 per cent people of hill population are non-tribals.

It tough to understand how creation of a tiny hill state within the constitution of India will destabilise India. History has proved that creation of Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland carved out of Assam did nothing to destabilise eastern India. In fact it expedited the pace of development. It defies all logic to think that a separate Gorkha state will destabilise Eastern India.

Yours etc.,
Shankar Pandey,
Shillong-2
Via e-mail

However, political activities relating to government formation is expected to pick up once a notification from the Raj Bhavan dissolving the assembly is issued, most likely tomorrow.

This will be followed by constitution of the new assembly and lifting of President's rule in the state imposed after dismissal of DAN government was dismissed ahead of the polls.

A delegation of National People's Front-led DAN, which is a pre-poll alliance and won 30 seats in the election to the 60-member assembly, had met the Governor last night and staked claim to form government claiming the support of three independents also.

BJP and NCP also conveyed to the Governor that they have extended full support to the leadership of former Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio.

On the other hand, Congress, which secured 23 seats, eight short of majority, is yet to stake its claim to form government.

The Congress Legislature Party held a marathon meeting but could not elect its leader leaving it party chief Sonia Gandhi to decide to do the job.

After a marathon meeting of newly elected legislators, attended by AICC observer Jagdish Tytler, 23 MLAs passed a unanimous resolution asking Gandhi to appoint the new CLP leader. (PTI)

Official sources said the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Returning officer, Zunheboto apprised the CEO's office at Kohima of the situation and asked for another day to hold the exercise at Zunheboto.

The postponement of poll in the area followed intermittent clashes between supporters of different candidates over past five days leaving at least two dead and 50 injured.

Police claimed the situation was under control with additional forces rushed to the area.

On March five polling could not be conducted in 14 booths spread over three constituencies of Surohoto, Aghunato and Satakha as there were no vehicles to ferry polling personnel.

It was rescheduled on March seven when polling could not be held again in four out of the 14 booths due to sporadic clashes between two groups of people. It was rescheduled further to March eight but re-polling could not be again held in one booth.

There are three contestants in fray including Khutovi (Congress). The Deputy Commissioner of Zunheboto was replaced on March six after he failed to arrange for vehicles for sending polling personnel to 14 booths spread over three Assembly constituencies. (PTI)

AGARTALA: The sixth Left Front Ministry headed by Manik Sarkar was sworn-in by Governor Dinesh Nandan Sahaya at a simple ceremony amid boycott by opposition Congress in protest against the post-poll violence across the State.

Governor DN Sahaya administered the oath of secrecy to the twelve-member council of Ministry at Raj Bhavan here on Monday.

Sarkar was sworn in as the chief minister for the fourth time followed by Anil Sarkar, a senior CPM leader, Aghore Debbarma, a prominent tribal leader, Badal Chowdhury, Tapan Chakraborty, Manik Dey, Jitendra Chowdhury, Khagendra Jamatia, Joygovinda Debroy, Ms Bijita Nath and Shahid Chowdhury.

Of the total council of ministers, three were new faces - Mr Debroy, Ms Nath and Mr Chowdhury.

Though portfolios are yet to be distributed, Aghore Debbarma is likely to get Agriculture, Animal Resource Development (ARD) and Agriculture. Chief Minister will continue to hold his existing portfolios - Home, Planning, General Administration and Law.

There will be no major changes in the ministry, sources close to CPM said.

Among others, CPM general secretary Prakash Karat, two politburo members - Brinda Karat and Ramchandranan were present in the swearing in ceremony.

Opposition Congress boycotted the swearing in ceremony protesting the sporadic incidents of post poll violence across the State. At least thirty people, belonging to Congress and INPT, were injured in attacks carried out by the ruling party cadres since the March 7.

INPT’s lone MLA Bijoy Kumar Hrangkhwal also joined the ceremony.

Meanwhile, buoyed by the impressive win, the CPI (M) led Left Front will organise victory rally here on Tuesday. Binda Karat, Ramchandranan and Chief Minister Manik Sarkar will address the rally.

Agartala: When a 40-year-old housewife from a little known Tripura village took oath as the Left Front Government's lone woman minister on Monday, it was a giant step forward for a homemaker catapulted into the rough and tumble of politics.

Bijita Nath was sworn in by Tripura Governor Dinesh Nandan Sahaya along with other ministers to run a government headed by Chief Minister Manik Sarkar. "I never held any government post, never contested any election before the Feb 23 assembly election in Tripura," said Nath. "I also do not know anything about administrative formalities and the bureaucratic method of functioning. God knows how I will handle ministerial work," a smiling Nath told IANS.

The wife of the schoolteacher and mother of two teens, Nath had been the custodian of her middle class household in Kadamtala village in north Tripura - till the election bells tolled and she contested on CPI-M ticket.

The graduate from Tripura University won from the Kadamtala constituency by a slender margin of 128 votes defeating former assembly speaker Jyotirmoy Nath of the Congress. (IANS)

Meanwhile, the Congress workers raised voices against Mr Barman and his son Sudip Roy Barman and held them responsible for the debacle. They also demanded his resignation from the TPCC president post on March 8.

''Weak organisational network, differences between the party workers and leadership are among the major factors for the party's debacle in the February 23 elections,'' Congress spokesman Tapas Dey said. (UNI)

After the question hour, Speaker Dr Budhichandra adjourned the House as members unanimously decried the militant attack on State legislature.

The session of Manipur Assembly, which began on February 20, will conclude on March 12. Unidentified militants drove up to the heavily-guarded assembly complex around 11.30 am on March eight and hurled a powerful bomb inside. They then sped away towards Imphal-Dimapur NH39. There was no casualty in the incident. (PTI)

Guwahati: Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi tabled a Rs 2819.23 crore deficit Budget for the year 2008-09 including current year deficit of Rs 458.53 crore in the State Assembly on Monday.

The Budget focuses on education sector, women welfare and, of course, the minorities, the Congress vote bank in the state. After presenting the Budget, Gogoi termed it a 'growth-oriented budget'.

For the first time, provision has been made for gender budgeting in the State. Tabling the Budget, Mr Gogoi said, "I have decided to introduce gender budgeting for 2008-09. To begin with, 12 departments having schemes with 100 per cent fund earmarked for women for the benefit of women will be taking up this exercise."

The budget has made provisions for over Rs 180 crore for twelve departments to implement welfare schemes exclusive for women.

The identified departments were Social Welfare, Health, Excise, Planning and Development, Education, Excise, Home (Police), Cultural Affairs, Panchayat and Rural Development, Food and Civil Supplies, Dairy Development and Labour and Employment.

In an attempt to check the spiraling prices of essentials in the state the budget proposes to do away with VAT on rice, pulses, wheat products, onion, potato, unbranded soya nuggets.

Liquor of all brands and all tobacco products will become costlier in the State. The tax on all brands of liquor in will be increased by 3 per cent to 27 per cent while 3 per cent cess will be levied on sale on tobacco products in the State.

To encourage export of tea from Assam, the Budget proposes to increase the deduction from 50 paise per kilogram to Rupee one per kilogram of tea from the Agriculture Income Tax for tea exported through the Inland Container Depot (ICD) near Guwahati. In view of reduction of Central Sales Tax from 3 per cent to 2 per cent on tea sold outside Guwahati Tea Auction Centre (GTAC), the State Government in the Budget has reduced the sales tax for tea sold through the GTAC by 0.25 per cent making it 0.75 per cent to encourage selling of the through the registered auction Centre.