SHILLONG: The State level Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribes on Thursday asked Tennydard M Marak to give his reply within a week on the issue of ST status of Chief Minister Mukul Sangma despite the appeal made to the Committee to defer its hearing.
Marak had questioned the hurry of the Scrutiny Committee in disposing of the case at a time when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
Earlier on Wednesday in the letter addressed to the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee, Marak had pointed that since he had filed a writ petition on April 12 before the Supreme Court challenging the jurisdiction and legality of the inquiry proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, the matter should be kept in abeyance pending the final decision of the Supreme Court.
Senior government official T Dkhar is the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. Law Secretary L M Sangma, social welfare department official HM Shangpliang and NEHU Anthropology Head Dr R Khongsni are other members.
On January 20 the Supreme Court had directed the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes to dispose of the matter within eight weeks. The deadline expired on March 24.
Petitioner Marak alleged that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes failed to comply with the order of the Court and moreover, the Chief Secretary WMS Pariat had allegedly ignored the Commission’s request to furnish his comments within a stipulated time .
Terming as illegal the Scrutiny ) Committee which is examining the ST status issue, the petitioner said that the person against whom the inquiry was being carried out was the Chief Minister, who was the executive head of the state and the Scrutiny Committee comprised officers belonging to state executive upon whom the Chief Minister exercised total control.
According to Marak, it was impossible to have a fair and impartial inquiry in this context.
He said that the merit of the case was that the mother of the Chief Minister was Roushanara Begum, a Muslim by faith and a non-Garo, and her alleged illegal adoption was not valid as adoption was only permissible in case of inheritance and not otherwise.
Marak said that the Garo tribe’s customs, traditions and practices were wholly inherited by birth and under no circumstances, the same could be embraced by conversion which was by virtue of marriage, adoption or simply living a Garo way of life.
The petitioner pointed out that the Chief Minister’s claim that his way of life and that of his brothers and sisters were like that of Garos, which included eating habits and speaking the Garo dialect, did not have any merit as they were not Garos by birth.