By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Dec 5: The Supreme Court has stayed an order of the High Court of Meghalaya that barred District Council Courts from handling criminal and civil cases involving two tribal parties. The stay was granted during the first hearing of a special leave petition filed by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) on December 2.
The High Court’s February 2023 judgment upheld the conviction of one Komerchand Sing Wanrieh, a tribal, accused by a Sessions Court in Ri-Bhoi district. However, it ruled that earlier notifications empowering District Council Courts to handle serious crimes were superseded by state notifications issued in 2015 and 2018. The court declared that only regular Sessions Courts could try cases involving severe punishments such as death or life imprisonment.
Senior counsel Vijay Hansaria, representing KHADC, argued that District Council Courts should retain jurisdiction over cases where both the victim and the accused are tribals. He cited a 2017 notification empowering District Council Courts to handle such cases and referenced a Supreme Court judgment supporting their jurisdiction.
Hansaria stated that the District Council Courts are governed by special provisions under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which grants them exclusive authority to try certain cases within their jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on portions of the High Court judgment that limited the powers of District Council Courts, stating that the matter required further examination. The apex court issued a notice returnable in six weeks but clarified that the convicted respondent could pursue legal remedies, if aggrieved.
Impact on district council courts
KHADC Deputy Chief Executive Member Pynshngain N Syiem highlighted the adverse impact of the High Court order, revealing that no cases have been filed in District Council Courts since the judgment. “The notifications empowering District Council Courts and magistrates have been superseded, and now all cases are filed directly with Sessions Courts,” he said.
Syiem questioned how the Sixth Schedule’s provisions could continue to apply when the power to handle criminal and civil cases has been reassigned to Sessions Courts through state notifications. He expressed concern over the diminishing role of District Council Courts and stressed the need for clarity on their jurisdiction.
The case has reignited discussions on the unique judicial framework in tribal areas and the balance between state and autonomous council jurisdictions.