Shillong, June 2: The Meghalaya High Court has taken strong note of an order by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) that found Deputy Syiem Mansan Manik Syiem “not fit” to occupy the post of Acting Syiem of Mylliem Syiemship because he is the younger brother of the suspended Chief.
Hearing a writ petition on June 1, Justice HS Thangkhiew observed that the writ petitioner had made an “overwhelming case for interference by this Court at this stage itself” and listed the matter for further hearing on June 3, 2026.
The petition challenges a KHADC order dated May 22, 2026.
Petitioner’s counsel, Philemon Nongbri, argued that the order was “signed only by a single Executive Member, which is against the mandate of Section 25 of The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Syiem, Deputy Syiem, Electors and Rangbah Shnong of Mylliem Syiemship) Act, 2007.”
He further cited Section 9 of the Act, which states that “it is the duty of the Syiem in accordance with the customary practices to nominate from amongst the adult brothers or nephews of the Syiem to be the Deputy Syiem or Syiem Khynnah.”
The third contention was on Section 8, which provides that when the office of Syiem falls vacant due to suspension, “the Executive Committee may by order in writing appoint the Deputy Syiem to act as an Acting Syiem,” with a proviso allowing appointment of any eligible Khasi male adult from the Syiem Mylliem Clan “in consultation with the Executive Durbar” if the situation warrants.
Nongbri submitted that the respondents had “gone beyond the scope of the Act” and that the impugned order “being in direct violation of the Act, the same is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.”
Appearing for KHADC, Senior Advocate HL Shangreiso, assisted by T Dkhar, contended that “it is not correct that the order was passed by a single Executive Member” and referred to the Minutes of the Executive Committee held on May 21, 2026.
He said the petitioner’s relation to the suspended Chief “was taken into consideration, and the same led to the order being passed.” On the proviso to Section 8(1), he argued it is “not mandatory but only an option.”
Justice Thangkhiew, after examining the materials, noted, “A perusal of the impugned order would show that the reasons ascribed therein for disregarding the present writ petitioner Deputy Syiem to be suitable for appointment as Acting Syiem is because of the fact that he happens to the younger brother of the suspended Chief.”
The Court added, “Further it is noted that though the order emanates from the Minutes of the proceedings on 21.05.2026, the same has been signed by a single Member on 22.05.2026.”
“What strikes the Court more in this regard is Section-9 of the Act, which has limited the consideration for appointment of Deputy Syiem from amongst the adult brothers or nephews of the incumbent Syiem,” the order said.
“The provision therefore having limited consideration to the adult brothers or nephews to be eligible for appointment as Deputy Syiem, the reasons ascribed in the impugned order shall have to undergo judicial scrutiny.”
On Section 8(1), the Court observed that “though materials have been produced by the learned Senior counsel, the only reason given therein is found in the impugned order itself, and no other reasons have been furnished or considered in the said Meeting as to the necessity of not resorting to the proviso of Section 8 (1).”
While allowing respondents to file affidavits with all materials produced, the Court said, “an endeavour shall be made to disposed of the matter on the next date.”
