Opposition in KHADC stages walkout in protest against tabling of “unconstitutional” budget

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaJune 24, 2025

Opposition in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) staged a walkout in protest against the Voice of the People Party (VPP)-led executive committee’s decision to table an “unconstitutional budget” during the council’s summer session, which went underway on Tuesday.

This came after the Chairman of the Council Strong Pillar Kharjana announced his ruling to allow the EC table the full budget for the financial year 2025-26 after putting the matter to vote.

For the first time in the history of the state, the House had to be adjourned before the EC could table the full budget for the financial year 2025-26 after the opposition objected to the fact that a sub-head entitled as supplementary expenditure for 2024-25 had reflected in the main budget, which according to them is “illegal”.

According to the opposition, rule 111 has clearly stated that “any supplementary expenditure or supplementary demand or additional amount should be placed before the House after passing of the budget.”

The supplementary expenditure for 2024-25 included in the main budget was allegedly pertaining to the salary expenditure of the employees, who were affected by the recent decision of the present EC to terminate their services and revoking regularisation of their services, the matter of which are now lying pending before the Meghalaya High Court. 

After the House resumed following the less than two-hour adjournment, the Executive Member in-charge Finance Seiborlang Warbah defended the EC’s decision to include the supplementary expenditure in the main budget and said, “There is no rule that prevent us from including the supplementary expenditure. Therefore, we should be allowed to proceed ahead with tabling the budget.”

According to the EM, the EC was not aware of the discrepancies related to appointment made to posts that were never sanctioned while tabling and passing the Vote on Account budget in March, earlier this year. 

“In regards to the vote of account placed by the EC that time, we did not detect the discrepancies. It was only after the committee constituted by the EC, we found that such posts were never sanctioned. Therefore, the supplementary expenditure is specifically for this,” he clarified while refusing to give any assurance to rectify the irregularity.

Not satisfied with the EM’s reply, Leader of Opposition Titosstarwell Chyne said, “

How will we accept a budget which is illegal and unconstitutional as it contravene the rules. Rules clearly stated that the supplementary expenditure demand should be introduced only after passing the budget. How did they come up with this decision to include a supplementary demand in the main budget?”

“To say that when we placed the vote of account that time, the EC was not aware of such discrepancies, is totally unacceptable. How can you bring a vote of account without doing proper homework. This only reflect the incapability and incompetency of the present EC,” he said.

Following the heated debate, the Chairman said, “Since the EC has clarified, I feel the budget should be allowed for tabling in the House.”

Accordingly, he asked those who are for tabling the budget to stand up and passed his ruling. 

As a mark of protest, members of the opposition staged a walkout while maintaining that they are not ready to be part of tabling a budget, which is unconstitutional and illegal. 

Speaking to reporters after the incident, Chyne said in the budget book which comprises of the different sub heads proposing estimates for 2025-26, in the Grant No 1 of the GAD, surprising a sub head entitlted – “supplementary expenditure 2024-25” has appeared, which amounting to Rs 1.88 crore. Similarly in Grant No 6 relating to legislative, a sub head entitled “supplementary expenditure 2024-25” had also appeared. 

This means that two supplementary expenditures for 2024-25 have reflected  in the budget book. 

The budget book is relating to detailed estimates proposed by the executive committee for the different heads and sub heads pertaining to salary expenditures for employees.

“What is surprising is the fact how a supplementary expenditure is reflecting here. I have raised point of order by stating rule 111 which clearly stated “that any supplementary expenditure or supplementary demand or additional amount should placed before the House after we have passed the budget,” Chyne said while adding “Actually, the supplementary demand for 2024-25 has ended as it was already utilized. The EC’s responsibility is to see in regards to the 2025-26. In March, the EC had tabled a vote of account. In the vote of account, they had already included and now they again included the supplementary expenditures which related to salaries of the employees in the full budget. When you have regularised it in the vote of account, how is it possible that you again will include in the full budget?”

Slamming the VPP for its alleged incompetency, Chyne said the present EC under the leadership of the chief executive member Shemborlang Rynjah is not fit to govern the affairs of the KHADC.

“The EM had came up with the excuse that they were not aware when the vote of account was passed. Can we accept that? You are the EM, you are EC, can you be so irresponsible to give such a reply inside the house. This only shows that they are incapable and not fit to govern in the KHADC,” he said

“Chairman after listening to our arguments had to adjourn the House. It is the first time in the history of the KHADC or in any assemby or state council that a House had to be adjourned before tabling a budget. This clearly shows they are not fit to run the KHADC,” he stated adding 

“Rule 111 itself clearly prevents the EC from bringing supplementary demands in the main budget. Because the budget is unconstitutional, therefore, we opposed and we decided to walkout as a mark of protest because we do not want to be part of this illegal act.”

“You (VPP) may have hidden agenda but don’t break the rules,” he also stated. 

Further, Chyne said that the supplementary demand is related to salaries of those employees, who were terminated recently and the matter of which is pending before the Court. 

“However, the court case is related to termination of employees and has nothing to do with the budget. It depends on the wisdom of the EC how it will pay their salaries instead of bringing a supplementary expenditure 2024-25 in the main budget, which is for the financial year 2025-26,” he stated. 

According to him, the EC has committed the unconstitutional and illegal act because it is scared of the court cases against the council following its order to terminate services of certain employees.