Nominal Index:

Shri. Saket S. Gokhale Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 5

Shri Bhalang Shylla & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 6

Shri. Momin Miah Vs State of Meghalaya & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 7

In Re: (Suo motu): Illegal mining of coal in the State of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 8

Union of India Vs Bina Khongbuh & ors 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 9

Judgments/Orders:

Meghalaya High Court Dismisses Saket Gokhale's Plea Seeking Action Against NPP For Violation Of Electoral Rules

Case Title: Shri. Saket S. Gokhale Vs. Election Commission of India & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 5

Finding the maintainability of the writ petition filed by All India Trinamool Congress spokesperson Saket Gokhale to be barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution, the Meghalaya High Court on Friday dismissed his plea seeking action against the National People's Party (NPP) for not filing its election expenditure report within 75 days of the conduct of the State Assembly Elections 2018.

Relying on the apex court judgement in Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam & Ors. (2004), the court said the dispute sought to be raised by the writ petitioner will not be entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, more specifically with the electoral process already underway.

Can't Turn Blind Eye To Heinous Crime Of Rape On Victim's Change Of Heart: Meghalaya High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case

Case Title: Shri Bhalang Shylla & Anr. v. State of Meghalaya

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 6

The Meghalaya High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. praying for quashing and setting aside a FIR under section 376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the ground that the parties have come to amicable settlement.

The court held:

“It may be true that after a change of heart or on extraneous circumstances, the petitioner No. 2 (victim) is persuaded to come together along with the petitioner No. 1 (accused) before this Court with this instant petition to quash the said FIR and proceedings, but the fact remains that an allegation of a heinous crime such as rape being committed and perpetrated on a woman, coupled with a threat for her life if she dared to reveal the incident to anyone cannot be taken lightly.”

[POCSO Act] Alleged Victim's Sole Testimony If Found Reliable Can Be Used To Decide Whether Case For Conviction Made Out Or Not: Meghalaya HC

Case Title: Shri. Momin Miah Vs State of Meghalaya & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 7

The Meghalaya High Court observed that the statement of an alleged victim girl in a POSCO case has a telling effect with regard to the fate of the criminal case as the sole testimony of a reliable witness, more so, when alleged victim of sexual assault will persuade and convince the court as to whether a case has been made out or not as far as conviction is concerned.

‘No Doubt Local Officials Are Involved’: Meghalaya HC Full Bench Orders Deployment Of Central Armed Forces To Prevent Illegal Coal Mining

Case Title: In Re: (Suo motu): Illegal mining of coal in the State of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 8

The Meghalaya High Court took a tough stand against the rampant illegal coal extraction and transportation within the State. While sounding the bell of caution for the probable outcomes of such unscientific mining, a Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Justice H.S. Thangkhiew and Justice W. Diengdoh observed,

“Without intending to sound apocalyptic or seeking to toll the knell of an imminent doomsday, it takes no rocket science to realise that the recipe is ripe for disaster. The pot is on the boil and it is brewing a calamitous broth. Yet the lure of a quick buck prompts the sentinel to look the other way.”

Consistency & Finality Of Judgements Paramount Over Correctness In Order To Ensure Judicial Discipline: Meghalaya High Court

Case Title: Union of India & anr Vs Bina Khongbuh & ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 9

The Meghalaya High Court on declined the impassioned plea on behalf of the Union Of India to at least observe that the judgment or the decision of November 29, 2021 which was being impugned in a Review petition before it, may not operate as a precedent.

A Division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed,

"Judicial discipline commands that a level of consistency is maintained and the concept of finality that is of paramount importance has more to do with consistency rather than correctness. At any rate, at this level and in the absence of the special power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the High Court is bound by the doctrine of precedents".