By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, Feb 25: Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma on Wednesday firmly rejected calls to revise Meghalaya’s 1972 Reservation Policy, warning that any restructuring could endanger the existing 85 per cent reservation for Scheduled Tribes.
Replying to a Zero Hour Notice and Short Duration Discussion raised by Voice of the People Party (VPP) MLA Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit and North Shillong MLA Adelbert Nongrum, the Chief Minister acknowledged that the state’s 85 per cent ST quota exceeds the 50 per cent ceiling set by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indra Sawhney case.
However, he highlighted that the policy has functioned uninterrupted for over five decades, a factor that significantly reduces the risk of judicial invalidation.
Sangma cautioned that replacing the current framework with a new formula would subject it to contemporary constitutional scrutiny, a test he said the existing half-century-old arrangement is better positioned to withstand.
The debate was triggered by Basaiawmoit, who proposed increasing the Khasi-Jaintia share to 47 per cent while keeping the Garo quota at 40 per cent. He expressed shock at the Expert Committee’s recommendation to maintain status quo and argued that legislative decisions should not be paralysed by fear of court review. He stressed that the proposal aimed to address the growing number of educated Khasi-Jaintia youth seeking fairer opportunities, without reducing Garo entitlements. The Chief Minister countered by grounding his stance in constitutional principles. He reiterated the Supreme Court’s position that reservation percentages cannot be fixed solely on population proportions; “backwardness” remains the core criterion.
The Expert Committee, he said, found no compelling evidence that differential backwardness justified altering the internal tribal distribution.
Sangma noted that a large section of stakeholders consulted by the committee favoured retaining the present structure to avoid risking the entire 85 per cent ST framework in legal challenges. He invoked the judicial view that equality does not require identical treatment of unequals, adding that the 1972 policy was designed to correct historical imbalances and should be reinforced through better implementation rather than structural change.
Reviewing historical context, Sangma pointed out that demands to revisit the policy date back to 1987, when the Khasi Students’ Union sought a review, leading to a committee that ultimately took no action. He referenced the November 1971 meeting chaired by Meghalaya’s first Chief Minister, WA Sangma, which shaped the 1972 resolution based on inadequate representation and socio-economic backwardness of Scheduled Tribes and Castes—not merely population.
Addressing the 85 per cent ceiling concern, Sangma explained that while the Supreme Court (Indra Sawhney judgment) imposed a 50 per cent general limit, the judgment recognised exceptions for tribal-majority states like Meghalaya to remedy historical disadvantages. He stressed that the Constitution sets no rigid numerical cap or fixed mechanism for reservation structures.
The Expert Committee examined three core issues: whether 85 per cent was excessive, whether the tribal sub-distribution reflected relative backwardness, and whether any change was needed. It concluded that the long-standing policy enjoys relative protection due to the state’s unique demographics, while a new policy would face higher vulnerability. Most representations favoured status quo of those seeking change, proposals varied between inter-tribal competition and population-based adjustments, but none met the backwardness threshold.
Sangma acknowledged understandable community aspirations but urged lawmakers to remain within constitutional bounds. He echoed calls for unity, recalling that Meghalaya’s creation in 1972 stemmed from collective effort.
On unemployment, he noted that government jobs alone cannot solve the issue. Citing recent figures, he said nearly 3.8 lakh jobs had been generated in agriculture, sports, music, and other sectors over the past eight years through economic growth and private initiatives. He advocated promoting entrepreneurship so youth become job creators.
Responding to the North Shillong MLA, Sangma clarified that the committee’s conclusions were not dictated by the volume of submissions but by constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, and detailed analysis. He encouraged members to read the full report.
Assuring further dialogue, Sangma said the government was open to sitting with legislators and stakeholders to discuss the report paragraph by paragraph on this sensitive matter.
