The Meghalaya High Court has set aside a notification issued by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) that required candidates contesting council elections to produce Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificates. The court held that the move bypassed the statutory procedure required to amend election rules and therefore could not stand in law.
The notification had been issued by the Chief Executive Member of the GHADC following a resolution passed by the Executive Committee last month. It effectively sought to prevent non-tribal individuals from contesting the upcoming council elections by making an ST certificate a mandatory condition for filing nominations.
A voter challenged the notification before the High Court, arguing that it violated the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, which regulate the qualifications of voters and candidates for district council elections.
During the hearing on Tuesday, senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the notification “de-franchised legitimate non-tribal voters and candidates without amending the relevant rules.” The counsel further argued that the measure lacked mandatory approvals under Rule 72 of the 1951 Rules, which require rule amendments to be cleared by both the District Council and the Governor.
The petitioner also pointed out that non-tribal individuals have historically taken part in GHADC elections and have served as council members since the council was established in 1952.
Defending the decision, the GHADC maintained that the notification was intended to safeguard tribal interests in light of changing demographic patterns. The council relied on the emergency powers of its Executive Committee to justify the move.
However, the High Court rejected this argument. It noted that the Executive Committee could only propose changes to the governing rules, and any such amendment would become effective only after approval from the District Council and the Governor in accordance with the statutory framework.
Holding that the procedure mandated under the 1951 Rules had not been followed, the court concluded that the notification could not withstand legal scrutiny.
“The notification cannot pass legal scrutiny and is set aside and quashed,” the court observed while disposing of the writ petition.
