“Historical residence does not automatically confer the right to contest elections in a constitutionally protected tribal institution.”
Shillong, Mar 3: Joining of more voices has intensified the debate over eligibility for contesting elections to Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) following two former MDCs from minority-dominated plain belt area of Garo Hills opposing the recent GHADC order barring non-STs from contesting the Council elections.
On Tuesday, MDC Rinaldo K Sangma has heavily criticised former MDC Sofiur Rehman for his remarks on the issue.
The Rongrong MDC asserted that the Council’s character under the Sixth Schedule means only Scheduled Tribes (STs) can contest the elections.
In a statement, Sangma said he vehemently disagree with Rehman’s interpretation of eligibility for contesting GHADC elections.
“Lest you forget, let me remind you…that the GHADC was established under the Sixth Schedule…with the clear objective of preserving and governing according to customs, traditions, and laws of our Garos,” he wrote.
He said legislative, judicial and executive competence “exclusively extends only over customs, traditions, social practices, land rights, inheritance and matters pertaining to our Garos only, not non‑tribals, nor other scheduled tribes residing elsewhere in Garo Hills, Meghalaya.”
Sangma called Rehman’s invocation of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 326 “fundamentally flawed and misunderstood,” noting these provisions are subject to Sixth Schedule protections “exceptionally designed to preserve indigenous identity against assimilation.”
He asked Rehman to undertake a “meticulous, para‑by‑para reading” of Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 20.
While acknowledging non‑tribal communities lived in Garo Hills before GHADC’s 1952 creation and Meghalaya’s formation, Sangma said historical presence does not confer constitutional rights reserved for tribal governance.
He urged Rehman and another former MDC and former MLA SG Estamur Mominin, who also made similar remarks opposing the GHADC order, to immediately abandon and publicly retract the claim that GHADC belongs to non‑tribals also.
Meanwhile, social activist Cherian G Momin has issued a strong constitutional rebuttal to both the former MDCs – Sofiur Rahman and SG Esmatur Momin.
In a statement on Tuesday, Momin defended the requirement of a valid ST certificate for candidates contesting GHADC elections, asserting that the condition flows directly from the constitutional intent of the Sixth Schedule and is not an arbitrary administrative restriction.
The row centres on whether the GHADC — constituted under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution — should require candidates to belong to Scheduled Tribes recognised in Meghalaya.
Momin argued that the GHADC is not a general representative body for all residents of the Garo Hills but a constitutionally protected institution carved out to safeguard tribal self-governance.
He maintained that the Constitution explicitly permits special protections and institutional safeguards for Scheduled Tribes, including legislative reservations and differentiated governance under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules.
“The Sixth Schedule should be read in harmony with the rest of the Constitution, not in conflict with it,” he said, arguing that requiring documentary proof of ST status is consistent with established election law practices across India.
Momin cautioned that historical residence in the region does not automatically confer the right to contest elections in a constitutionally protected tribal institution.
He stressed that residency and civil belonging are distinct from eligibility to represent a body specifically designed to protect tribal political autonomy.
He further stated that if there are objections to the ST certificate requirement, the appropriate recourse is judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.
“Public discourse must be anchored in constitutional text and jurisprudence rather than populist rhetoric,” he said, urging Sofiur Rahman and Esmatur Momin to retract their claim that the GHADC “belongs to non-tribals” in the context of electoral eligibility.
The unfolding debate raises broader questions about the balance between equal citizenship rights and constitutionally mandated tribal safeguards under the Sixth Schedule framework — an issue that could have implications beyond the Garo Hills.
