By ES Jyrwa
The main objectives of the Sixth schedule of the Constitution of India are to protect, preserve and promote the customary right of the indigenous tribal communities. In order to attain these objectives the autonomous District Council of U.K & J. District enacted many regulations and Acts to this effects. However, certain highly educated and knowledgeable individuals along with ex-bureaucrat of the state tried to run down and dilute the old age customs of these communities, for instance the so called Rangbah Shnong of these areas i.e. Shillong and its outskirts allowed and accommodated the women folks to participate and deliberate in these Durbar, so much so, in the election of the Headman. According to the Khasi customs, no female members can enter and participate in the village durbar. However, in Shillong and its suburbs the female took prominent part in the Durbar which is contrary to the spirit and essence of the Khasi customs. The Khasi consider the durbar as ‘sacred’ and only the male adult can participate in the durbar. The Khasi Autonomous District Council of U.K. & J Hills besides enacted many laws and regulations, it comes up ;with the enactment of the U. K.& J. Autonomous District Council appointment of Chief and Headmen act, 1959 in accordance with para-3(g) of the sixth schedule. The Khasi hills district council on seeing, the haphazard way of functioning of this institution in the election of the Rangbah Shnong (Headman) amended the act in 2007 known as The Autonomous District Council (Appointment and succession of the Syiem, Deputy Syiem, elder and Rangbah Shnong of Mylliem Syiemship act) 2007.
However, controversy arose by the ruling the High Court of Meghalaya WP(C) No.363 22015 on the allegations that the said judgment has stripped off the powers of the Headmen. The conglomeration of Headmen of Shillong and its outskirt held a meeting at Jaiaw, on Jan 31, 2015 and decided to meet the Chief Minister to seek recognition from the State Government. The question arises whether the Chief Minister can entertain the delegation of these Headmen-when the subject matter is within the domain of the District Council? Can the state transgress the powers and jurisdiction of the District Council? May we ask the state of Meghalaya whether they can question the para-3(g) of the sixth schedule?
The leaders of the Synjuk Ki Rangbah Shnong are fully aware that these areas falls within the autonomous areas of Khasi hills .According to the Supreme Court judgment (AIR Supreme Court 1022.1975. i.e. the U.K. & J. Autonomous District council & another appellants vrs ka Drepsila Lyngdoh and another Syllai U Ler Mylliem Syiemship stated that the Bara Bazar Areas falls within the village of Mawkhar. Accordingly with this judgment ,all areas within Shillong municipality except the administered areas, falls within the autonomous areas of Mylliem Syiemship.
Section 16 of the Khasi autonomous district council (Appointments and Successions of the Syiem, Deputy Syiem, Elder and Rangbah Shnong of Mylliem Syiemship) 2007 states thus:
(1) When a vacancy occurs in the office of Rangbah Shnong, the Syiem or acting Syiem shall on advice of the executive Durbar, direct the Khasi males/adults/elders of the village/urban locality to summon the meeting of the head of the households/elders of the village/urban locality or male adults of the village/urban locality as the case may be, on such date and time as maybe fixed by him for the election of the new Rangbah Shnong. Such meeting shall be presided by the Basan, Myntri, Lyngdoh, Syiem raid, Lyngdoh raid duly authorized by the Syiem/acting Syiem and his Durbar.
- The results of the election shall be placed before the Syiem/acting Syiem and his executive Durbar for confirmation and which shall issue appointment letter or SANAD to the person concerned on such term and conditions as the executive Durbar may prescribe. Such action shall be intimated to the executive committee accordingly.
- The Rangbah Shnong shall be elected by recognized Khasi male adults, who are permanent residents of the village or the urban locality concerned.
- The executive Durbar may determine the necessary qualifications and other matters connected with the post of Rangbah Shnong.
The leader of the Conglomerations of Headmen of Shillong (Synjuk Ki Rangbah Shnong) and its outskirts who met on the 31st January 2015 cannot feign ignorance of the set amendments, as it is said that ignorance of law is no excuse. The question arises whether these headmen are elected and appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 16 of the set amendment 2007 and whether the Syiem of Mylliem has issued any Sanad to these headmen. In the event of these headmen functioning without the Sanad of the Syiem of Mylliem then they are headmen without any legal sanction hence their functions and claims as headmen are fictitious and illegal.
May we ask the C.E.M whether the headman where the locality he resides is elected and appointed according to the provisions of the Act of the District Council? It appears that in Shillong there are two types of headmen, one the type that acts without any legal sanction and lack legal entity and the others who are legally appointed according to the Act.
Some of the active members of the so-called Durbar Shnong expressed their views that the residents of their areas approached the Rangbah Shnong for N.O.C., as the state government departments, such as Shillong Municipality, Office of the Sub- Registrar, Banking Institutions, MeECL etc., insist for N.O.C from the Headmen, though there is no mention anywhere in their respective Acts which provide for issuing the N.O.C. When questioned on the validity of N.O.C. the authority concerned parried the answer and they only stated that they followed what their predecessors did. Recently the Meghalaya High Court struck down the powers of Rangbah Shnong to issue NOC because there are no provisions in the Registration Act 1908 for the N.O.C from the Headmen. The High Court of Meghalaya in W.P(C) NO.7(SH)2008 observed ” …..if the sale deed fulfilled the requirement of law, the Respondent No.2 (Sub-Registrar) cannot refuse registration on the grounds which are not prescribed by the Indian Registration Act 1908. ” The Respondent No.2 shall pay to the Writ Petitioner for causing vexatious and unnecessary harassment. The Banking Institutions, Shillong Municipality, M.S.E.B. The departments of the state government etc perhaps are unaware of the judgment of the Meghalaya High Court in W.P.(C)NO.7(SH)2008.
A Khasi daily quoting the Khasi Hills Trading by Non-tribal regulation 1954. Sec. 3A (3) questioned whether the application has been recommended by the village headman after the approval of the Local Durbar. It appears that the judgment of the Meghalaya High Court W.P © No. 363 is not applicable to the said Act. The question arises as to whether the Headman and the Village Durbar are duly constituted by the Regulation of the Khasi Hills District Council.