HC stays floor test of Mizoram LADC chief amid legal dispute

Aizawl: The Aizawl bench of Gauhati High Court on Thursday stayed the vote of confidence scheduled to be taken up on Friday in the session of the Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC) when chief executive member (CEM) N Zangura, appointed by the Mizoram governor Gen VK Singh on April 30 and notified on May 2, is set to prove his majority on the floor of the council.

Gauhati High Court judge Justice Nelson Sailo ruled that the notification issued by the govt on May 8 is stayed. "Having regard to the fact that floor test in respect of respondent No 5 (N Zangura) is scheduled to be held on 16.05.2025 and at the same time, considering the fact that the respondent No 5 was appointed on 02.05.2025, on which date, the appointment of the petitioner subsisted as the CEM, LADC, it is hereby directed that until the next returnable date, the impugned Notification dated 08.05.2025 shall remain stayed," the judge ruled.

Additional secretary to the governor, Joseph Lalrinawma, issued a letter to the chairman of LADC on May 8, categorically saying the governor is pleased to extend the time line for proving majority in the LADC till May 16. The decision of the governor was challenged by V Zirsanga, leader of the Zoram People's Movement (ZPM) legislature party, who was appointed by the governor as CEM of the LADC with effect from Feb 24.

RR David, one of the advocates for Zirsanga, submitted that the petitioner having been appointed as the CEM, LADC, cannot be removed in the manner it has been done except by a motion presented by a member of the district council in writing to the secretary before the commencement of the sitting in terms of Rule 83 of the Constitution and Conduct of Business (CCB) Rules.

In case of the petitioner, no such motion has been moved by any member of the district council and that the appointment of the respondent No 5 (Zangura) during the subsistence of the appointment of the petitioner as CEM, LADC is wholly illegal and therefore, the appointment of the respondent No 5 and the other notifications impugned should be set aside by this court.