GUWAHATI
A notification barring non-tribal people from contesting the April 10, 2026 elections to the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) has stoked controversy in Meghalaya.
Garo tribal organisations have defended the GHADC’s February 17 notification, which makes it mandatory for all candidates to possess a Scheduled Tribe or ST certificate. Non-tribal leaders have slammed the notification as an unconstitutional move to deprive them of their rights.
The GHADC has 30 constituencies. Elections are held in 29 seats, while the State Governor nominates a member. Bengali-speaking or Bengal-origin Muslims call the shots in at least five of these constituencies straddling the plains belt of the Garo Hills. Muslims comprise more than 70% of the population in this belt.
Former legislator S.G. Esmatur Mominin questioned the legality of the notification, arguing that the GHADC lacks constitutional authority to impose a condition barring non-tribal people from contesting elections.
Enamul Haque, an aspiring candidate for the Balachanda constituency, pointed out that the notification was based on Paragraph 11 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. He said the paragraph only outlines how laws and regulations take effect upon publication in the official gazette, and does not grant the council authority to prescribe new qualifications or disqualifications for membership.
Mr. Haque noted that non-tribal residents have been contesting elections since the inception of the District Council in 1952, as the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules of 1951 do not bar them from contesting elections, except for reserved seats. “The move is arbitrary and also a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” he said.
Tribal groups warn
Tribal organisations defended the GHADC notification and warned against any move to reverse it. These include the Federation of Khasi Jaintia Garo People, the Garo Students’ Union, and the A’chik State People’s Forum (ASPF).
Bernita Marak, the general secretary of the ASPF, said Article 244(2) of the Constitution of India grants the autonomous district councils the authority to ensure that the indigenous communities remain primary custodians of their governance. “Any attempt to circumvent these provisions is legally untenable and constitutionally indefensible,” she said.
Garo Hills-based social activist Cherian Momin also cited Article 244(2) to argue that the GHADC is a constitutionally entrenched autonomous institution, not a general representative body. He also said the Sixth Schedule is a special constitutional arrangement designed exclusively to secure tribal self-governance, preserve customary laws, and protect the socio-cultural identity of the STs.
“The legal character of the GHADC must be understood within this framework, noting it is a tribal autonomous constitutional body rather than a secular territorial legislature for all inhabitants,” he said. The nominations for the GHADC elections begin on March 9, 2026.
Published – March 04, 2026 03:42 pm IST
