Shillong, July 10: Cabinet Minister Sanbor Shullai on Friday said he had received a “very good response” from the Governor’s office on his petition seeking withholding of assent to the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non-Tribals) (Amendment) Bill, 2026.
Shullai had petitioned Governor CH Vijayashankar, contending that the Bill was “ultra vires” the Constitution and beyond the legislative competence of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC).
Asked about the status of his representation, Shullai said, “Very good response. Supposed the Bill has been endorsed by the district council affairs department, government of Meghalaya to him then he will also have to endorse the matter to the officers to study in line with the law department.”
In his petition, Shullai objected to the provision making it mandatory for non-tribal employers to obtain service licences for non-tribal employees.
He argued that the amendment “severely overreaches” the KHADC’s jurisdiction and goes beyond the powers granted to autonomous district councils under Paragraph 10 of the Sixth Schedule.
“The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation Act, 1954 was enacted to regulate trading by non-tribals… By attempting to extend regulatory control from independent traders to corporate/individual employees, the KHADC has infringed upon areas outside its constitutional mandate,” Shullai had stated.
He warned that granting assent to the Bill could expose the Council to legal challenges and infringe upon fundamental rights.
“The proposed Bill is a facial violation of Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” he had said.
Shullai also raised procedural concerns, alleging that the Bill was introduced without adequate consultation with stakeholders and would create “arbitrary regulatory hurdles.”
Referring to Paragraph 12A of the Sixth Schedule, he said state laws would prevail in cases of repugnancy.
Calling the amendment politically motivated, Shullai urged the Governor to examine its alleged legal and constitutional infirmities.
“In light of the facts and legal positions stated above, we respectfully request your esteemed office to thoroughly examine the legal infirmities, lack of legislative competence, and constitutional violations inherent in this Bill, and consequently, withhold assent,” he had said in the representation.
